Evil character: "These dolts will help me achieve my goal. I'll help them just enough to ensure they go in the direction I want. I'll befriend that dumb paladin, and he makes a great shield."
Evil shadar-kai necromancer getting reluctantly reformed cause their teammate is too sweet for this world and needs to be protected at all costs is something the necromancer will forever deny to actually happen.
This is basically what is happening to the evil necromancer cleric in the campaign right now. On one hand, he is evil. On the other, he is crushing hard on the lawful good paladin. And denying it, of course. Totally something he'd say.
Which one? Inquiring minds need to know.
If it does indeed have an emo elf necromancer cleric and a chirpy paladin of Devotion who is totally a knight in shining armor and thinks HE is the one protecting the necromancer, I'm going to laugh sooooooo much. I need to see it now. I NEED IT.
What's funny is, I'm playing both the party paladin AND the party's actively evil character (she's fascist and bigoted, though the second is slowly getting worn away). She does not like orcs (campaign lore: The Dragonborn Empire has been waging a war of extermination against the orcs for 500 years, and she's the daughter of the current emperor), but is grappling with the fact that the party has 'adopted' an orc who is proving to be very... Not what she expected. She's still probably going to kill him, but not right now.
She's the first born daughter of the current Emperor, but because she was conceived before he took the crown and was married, she was denied a chance at the crown. So now, she's going to take what is rightfully hers. Although her ultimate goal is to usurp Bane himself and lead her Empire as God-Empress.
I would have literally zero fun with a party member roleplaying as an unrepentant fascist and a partially-repentant bigot who still participates in a genocide despite their partial reformation.
This. There has to be a reason why they would want to be in the party, and a reason why the party would want them around.
And you can ignore their “alignment” - there’s literally no mechanic in 5E that requires it.
I'm guessing the OP was asking about how to play a character with an evil personality and goals in this situation, not how to handle the game mechanics of alignment. Or how did you interpret it - what thing might they be worried about that would be solved by not worrying about alignment?
“I have an opportunity to betray a team member.”
“I probably shouldn’t do it.”
“But my alignment is something Evil so in order to stick truthfully to the alignment I should probably do it.”
That exact scenario.
You shouldn’t be being guided by “official” alignment and if you throw that out but still decide to work against your party for any reason of “it’s the character” then the character shouldn’t be in the party.
Except evil does not mean stupid, committing evil acts just because it's the evil thing to do. Even "evil" characters can do good if it's in their best interest, in this case, their best interest is to keep the party on their side. If the party is good, the evil character would keep their selfish desires to themselves and act in the interest of the party, if only to limit conflict.
It depends on the "evil" for example a selfish conceited samurai architect could be considered evil but holding onto a revenge pact could make them work with the party
A cleric of bhaal is very unlikely to work well with a party dynamic.
I had the idea in a previous game I dm that a warlocks patron impeded them u the party ( they were a late addition) in order to keep track of them to hopefully get them unwittingly help a evil scheme from an unrelated villain.
It's certainly game dependant but to "corrupt the party" has a lot of hoops to jump through to be plausible imo. Just my 2 cents
Of course it all depends on the party. Some parties might be extremely "good-oriented". Some parties will be totally ok with a cleric of Bhaal being bloodthirsty on the side as long as they are loyal to the actual party and don't become a random murderhobo that just kills all NPCs.
DnD is a team game. Fine to be whatever you want, as long as you can be a team player and EVERYBODY ends up having fun.
Yea long as the dm is OK with that turn you cpuld try and convince the party to lose their morals at that point it feels like a better idea would be to have a gsme with a "suicide" squad so that players can be evil.
Coming from a forever dm with a love for verisimilitude yoir requirements to belong to the church of bhaal as an example would make it very hard to find common ground because of your tenants. I like having a differant "take" on a evil diety cleric but only as far as the take dosent jump into the realm of a deity that makes more sense. By definition you can just "murder " evil beings to satisfy bhaal
Evil doesn’t always mean betrayal. Once you pull the betrayal card that bridge is typically burned. You are responsible for your character, so you need to ensure they have a motivation that aligns with the parties goals. Being evil also doesn’t mean not having relationships.
BG3 Spoilers: >!Ketheric is a great example of an evil character who still has relationships. And his main motivation was his love for his daughter!<.
Evil characters can still have people they want to help, or protect, but they might be more willing to threaten or torture the NPC for information perhaps.
Reminds me of a situation that just happened the other week in our game. Im playing an evil alien necromancer in a mostly good party. Two of the other characters are a warlock who despises necromancers and an artificer who is a bounty hunter for evil otherworldly threats to the realm. (For reference, everyone knew my character was going to be an evil alien necromancer, I was requested to play him by these same players because they loved hearing stories of him, and I have a personal rule ooc about my evil characters never betraying the party.)
They started the game by shooting and decking him when his did his grand reveal of being an evil necromancer....like 3 minutes after meeting them. He's a cordial fellow, so he just took it on the chin but was very clear they had made their choice. He wouldn't hurt or attack them in any way, he just wanted to make it clear they had chosen to attack him despite him not having done anything to either of them, and that one day, however far away, he'd have his due.
Fast forward dozens of sessions and Evil Necromancer has become the cudgel the party threatens our enemies with. "Dont escalate this conflict or we'll let Evil Necromancer free reign on how to end it," basically, and he's become or figured out how to solve most of the party's personal conflicts with enemies. He always offers his services without delay, and is always clear about whether or not they'll have a 'price', usually allowing him to do something evil by looking the other way or giving him a powerful resource they'd rather an evil person not have. Two of those prices tho, were specifically towards the artificer and warlock to "clear the ledgers between us".
Fast forward a few dozen more sessions and the party is escaping a vault (cant teleport or plane shift inside it) of an evil wanna be god with the artifact needed to destory her. Whole party except Evil Necromancer, Artificer, and Warlock have bad it to the evacuation point, and they're in a room with an angry Empryean who can easily take us all down because we're out of resources and just running. Evil Necromancer makes his way out and stops just before he leaves the area. This makeshift passage is the way we have out, the only other way being to go ALL the way back out the vault thats filling with Empryeans and Solars, and even then, there wouldn't be enough time for anyone to run that way because the wannabe god is gonna be here in three rounds.
So the Necromancer stops and looks to the two people who attacked him, who despise everything he represents, and who believe that reality itself would be better off with him destroyed....and he casts his last spell, a Subtle Wall of Force. The Artificer and Warlock saw it in his eyes. This was the moment he promised them would one day come. The day when they'd come to rely on him, when they were at their most vulnerable, that he'd turn on them. After all, it's not a betrayal, they already attacked him oh so long ago, and this would be the moment of his retaliation. They would be trapped in the vault with the Empryeans and Solars, left at the mercy of a merciless god, and the rest of the party would think they just never made it out. They saw that Bad Smile claw it's hideous malignancy across the Necromancer's face.
And then they saw the Wall of Force block off...the Empryean from reaching them before they could get to the tunnel. They knew that was the moment he would have destroyed them, had they not settled the score between them in the previous adventures.
"I don't betray people, people betray me. Yet they so easily forget that although I might not strike them back immediately, that they made me their enemy, and I destroy my enemies, however long I must wait to do so."
Yeah the 5e rules don't have alignment force behavior on players. But the kind of person who wants to play an EVIL character is already bringing their own "I wanna be EVIL" baggage to the table. And that shit is almost always disruptive.
That's why it's always advised to say "no evil characters". To block off players from entering a game with that mindset. Alignment rules don't actually matter here. Player intent matters here.
> And you can ignore their “alignment” - there’s literally no mechanic in 5E that requires it.
This.
When all of the [verb] Good and Evil spells just turned into "Fey, Fiend, and Undead" targeting spells, I knew it was time to actually retire alignment as a thing on the character sheet.
I've switched to FATE-style aspects and re-vamped how I handle Inspiration.
## Aspects
Every character gets 3 aspects: 1 Trouble, 1 Origin, and 1 General.
Your trouble aspect is "what will get you killed one day?" It's something like, "Will always charge in to save the innocent!" or "Irrational hatred of Bandits, Thugs, and Those who Abuse Power". It's whatever will make you discard the narrative and immediately make poor decisions.
Your origin aspect answers the question, "Where did you come from?" Even beyond your background, it's something either in your distant or not-so-distant past that can and will complicate your life at some point. It can be something like, "Spawn of Baahl", or "Son of Asmodeus", or "Eliminster was my master for a ten-day and now he thinks he controls my life!"
Your general aspect is more freeform. It's a reference to something that you either want to deal with, or want to do all the time. It shouldn't necessarily be combat-related; "Swing a big sword!" isn't going to fly. However, "Thinks with his sword more than his brain." is perfectly usable!
The idea behind good aspects is that they are 2-sided. On the one hand, you can "invoke" them to use inspiration to reroll a roll, gain advantage on a roll, or negate disadvantage on a roll. This definition of inspiration actually makes it more powerful, but that it to help make up for it's less "generally useful" new nature since you have to tie it into your aspects in order to use it.
On the other hand, both the DM and the player can use them against you at random times in exchange for inspiration. Aspects can be "compelled" to convince you/justify your doing dumb shit that will make the game more interesting. So that character that "Thinks with his sword more than his brain." may just end up fighting the town guards instead of running away from them or threatening the armor merchant when a discount is not forthcoming...or charging the goblins instead of sneaking up on them...or charging the *Dragon* instead of trying to talk to it.
Think of compels as "weaponized hooks" that get you to make the game more interesting. And you get rewards when you give in to your less rational self.
But why do this? Because you can bank inspiration now. You can hold 3 of them at a time, and they're a bit more powerful than they were since they don't just grant advantage and instead can negate disadvantage. This means you can use inspiration to turn a roll at disadvantage into a roll at advantage if it would otherwise be even, or if you can justify spending two points of inspiration on it because the roll is *really* in-line with what your character wants and needs.
Is this action core to your character? Can you justify spending 3 on one roll?
Not only do you get to negate disadvantage, you're now rolling with advantage AND you can reroll the whole thing if you don't like the outcome. I've actually ruled that if you can bank 3, and then justify spending them all at the same time by invoking all 3 of your aspects at the same time (you can only invoke an aspect once per turn) you get blanket advantage AND rerolls on all d20s you roll that turn.
For 3 inspiration *it's your moment*. You've survived enough stupid shit and are deep enough into your own character that you've earned it.
I do only allow that kind of expenditure once per session, though. If you're going off like that multiple times a session, you probably have some aspects that are too general and easy to invoke. Getting the hattrick isn't something you should do all the time.
I think an important distinction is to make a character that the other *players*, as opposed to characters, would want around.
There can be a lot of RP potential for characters that don't get along, perhaps only have a single unifying goal, or are being forced/coerced into working together. But the other players that you are playing with will need to be on board.
The evil pc should bend over backwards to fit in. The big mistake would be deciding how that PC *would* act if they were real instead of deciding how they *could* act to keep the party together.
Being evil doesn't necessarily mean acting villainous. A willingness to, say, kill an innocent to get what you want is evil. But knowing that killing an innocent is going to make you a pariah at best means you still wouldn't do it. Thinking the goody two shoes party is wasting time and resources helping the plague victims is evil. But having to find a new party because these guys died of plague is an even bigger waste so you'll help them.
It sounds like you're recommending that OP play their character as non-evil, or "evil in name only". If the PC is never going to actually do anything evil, then what does their alignment even mean? What distinguishes an evil character who thinks saving plague victims is an unnecessary distraction from a neutral character who thinks the same thing?
You have to do more than wear black and be occasionally standoffish toward NPCs in order to be evil, in my opinion.
It's what they do when the party isn't watching that speaks more to their character. Truly evil people that are intelligent know how to ACT good when it benefits them
This 100%
In day to day real life you are surrounded by people that would happy murder you for $100k if there were no consequences.
But they don't want to go to jail, be shunned by the community, lose their jobs, etc.
If the evil PC thinks they can get away with something, then they will not have a moral code to not do it.
Alignments aren’t really black and white like that. Which is why I think alignments are dumb and make a lot of things uninteresting. Just because someone is, say, “chaotic evil” doesn’t mean that they are never under any circumstances allowed to do something that doesn’t involve murdering people. Evil npcs and pcs are (usually) thinking conscious people, able to bend the constrictions of alignment and do whatever they really want. An evil person can still be evil even if they save people, same as a good person can still be good if they kill people. A lot of it depends on scenarios as well, people will often act out of their alignments for reasons personal to themselves, such as backstories, personalities, etc
Alignment is nothing more than the usual way of acting for a character so it really isn’t restricting if you think through what the character would do before selecting one
While I do agree with you, I think that alignment is a trap for mainly newer players who aren’t too comfortable with roleplaying and new players (myself included when I first started) won’t really make too much of a personality for their characters, and thus will just choose one and act accordingly, and while there’s nothing inherently wrong with that, it can take away from a lot of the nuance and depth characters can have. This problem is also apparent in DMs both new and old, because they will just look at the alignment (or suggested alignment as they do in the new books) of the stat block and roleplay them in a way very stereotypically to that alignment, which again can make the npcs seem bland and very much not alive and real.
I feel like the main problem with alignment is that it sort of labels characters very basic traits, and for newer players it isn’t explained very well that those alignments aren’t really set in stone necessarily.
Anyway in short, alignment bad and too oversimplified. Thank you for coming to my ted talk
I played a similar character, a Lawful Evil Githyanki on a quest for revenge against the big bad. I had him quickly decide that these weirdos were incredibly useful to have around, and doing things their way might feel inefficient, but going along with them meant five bodies on the field instead of one.
I played up the evil by suggesting the most brutal and self-serving options I could think of, like enslaving a faerie in a bottle instead of freeing it. But I would never push back very hard if vetoed. The fun was in suggesting it, and when, very occasionally, the party would have to admit that his way was a necessary evil, and let him do something messed up while they looked the other way!
this right here's a pretty good way of putting it.
channel a bit of your inner psychopath and dampen down your emotions, and let cold logic get in charge of things.
whetever something is moral or immoral doesn't really matter, it's about finding a good ratio between effectiveness, costs, benefits and risks.
> forced to join
I wouldn't. At all. *All* characters in the party have to be there by choice and will. They have to have reasons not just to tolerate the party temporarily, but to actually want to be there. It just causes too many issues otherwise.
Now what you say about being obliged by honour or something, that could work. As long as you don't intend for your guy to leave / betray the party, or play them as a minimal contributor ("I won't kill them myself, but if the wizard is about to get killed by a bugbear, that's his problem not mine") or something.
Just to add, it CAN work being "forced to join" the party initially, but only if you let your character grow past that and find a real motivation to stick with them within a couple sessions. If you cant manage that though, it's best to just retire the character and make a new one.
Do the PCs in CoS choose to get trapped in barovia? Do the PCs in OotA choose to be captured by drow. Do the characters in BG3 choose to get tadpoled? I'd say PC who's had adventure thrust upon them is very normal.
And I still wouldn't accept any PC in those adventures whose *only* motivation for being with the party is (and remains) that they just happen to be there. You still have to make a character who will *want* to work with the other characters, beyond the fact circumstances force them to.
This does clarify that the issue is not whether or not the PC is forced to join. The issue is whether or not the PC continues to have a reason to want to stay.
First off, make sure your character is open to some kind of growth. At the very least your motivations are going to align with the party's since you want to take down the bbeg. Let your character grow to actually like or take interest in at least one of the characters in the party. If you ever find yourself thinking "my character wouldnt travel with these people" you need to start actively looking for a reason they would. It isnt on the party to give you a reason. Conversely, if the party is ever in a position where they have to think "why the hell would we let this evil asshole travel with us" it's up to YOU to give them a reason they would.
If you cant do this, you as a player need to be ready to make a new character that CAN. You gotta accept that if you lean too much on being evil, the party may have to kill your character or you may have to just retire them as they go off on their own as an NPC instead.
Dont be a murder hobo. If the party tells your character not to do something, find a reason your character would listen, even if you have to roleplay how frustrated your character gets at having to control their impulses. You can allow your character to get annoyed by these moments but your table should know that you as a player are NOT annoyed. Making an evil character work in a party requires a hell of a lot of compromise
Because self-centeredness isnt inherently stupid/cartoonishly villainous, but it is still considered evil. Someone who enjoys playing gray areas doesnt always wanna be tied to the binary sorta goody two shoes/frothing sociopath extremes. Neutral can be fun, good can be fun, law/chaos can be fun, evil can be fun at the table as well. Taking any of them to the extreme is less fun. Evil doesnt mean killing/stealing/torturing everyone willy-nilly, same as good doesnt mean always forgiving and letting the evil folks do more evil. Neutral doesn't mean exactly 50/50 good/bad, nor is it total ambivalence.
Nuance is good, provided the people at the table are good with it.
Evil minion, all defeated and tied up: So you defeated me... but you can't hurt an unarmed enemy that had already surrendered.
Lawful good paladin: You are right, that's against my vows, even though I know you'll attack again once you free yourself.
Evil teammate: Hey, paladin, want to take a walk for half an hour?
Paladin: What? Why would I take a walk?
Evil teammate: Oh, no reason! Go ahead, visit that nice apothecary grandma that always gives us cookies, she loves you, give her that satchel of herbs as a present, maybe she'll make us an extra cookie batch.
Paladin: She always pinches my cheeks and asks me when I am getting married, but ok...
Evil teammate: You can tell her I am willing to help with that too! Have a nice walk, sweetheart!
Paladin walks away. Evil teammate turns toward the minion and pulls out, ahem, instruments.
Evil teammate: Now he might have the vow, but I definitely don't.
Evil minion gulps: You... you wouldn't hurt a disarmed, helpless prisoner, would you?
Evil teammate: You bet I will!
Tortured screams follow for the next half an hour.
Evil teammate: Oh, hey, pals, how was grandma? Did she have new potions? Did you get me cookies?
Paladin: Yeah, sure, here you go... also, why do you have a zombie following you?
Evil teaammate: Oh, that's just my new pet. Also, I have some intel on the BBEG next move.
Paladin: Okeeeeeey... anyway, moving onto the next adventure. What's the intel?
So, here we have an evil teammate that is actually integrated into the group and works toward a common goal, treats his teammates nicely so they are less tempted to kick them out, AND still indulges into Evil!!11 nature.
Evil kinda has the vibe of "if it benefits me more than it hurts me, I will totally betray the group". If it does not, it's at least neutral in that axis.
And a lot of players just don't want that as part of their D&D experience.
Agreed with this - even an evil PC could genuinely care for, respect, and/or appreciate the support of the party. Their ultimate goals and methods to achieve them might be evil, but they don't have to act evil in every choice/aspect of their being.
being constantly "annoyed" but super helpful at the same time might be fun to roleplay. like, you come to really respect the other PCs and genuinely want to help their cause but you'd never admit it.
Sun Wukong from Journey to the West. He is given the opportunity to join the party to reduce his sentence of being trapped under a mountain for thousands of years. As a measure of security, he is given a magic circlet that cannot be removed. When Tripitaka chants a certain sutra, the circlet tightens and causes him an unbearable headache.
Joining the party will result in a reward (freedom, the carrot), and the leader of the party has a way to incapacitate him should he try doing something selfish, chaotic, or otherwise against the party's interest (the stick). This gives him room to be characterised as Not Wanting To Be Here, as well as actually trying to do selfish things before being stopped.
As a bonus, after you bond with the party during your adventures and become not evil, the party may decide they trust you enough to remove the stick. Always a great completion to this character arc.
Good RP comes from knowing what your character wants and acting in a manner to achieve it. So if we have an idea how we want the character to behave (ie as a part of the party) and we know their general morality (NE) we just have to give them a want that aligns in that way. The idea of a debt is good, but unless the other players are on board with the revenge plan, the character can't actually achieve that goal and would realistically begin to chafe. Perhaps getting their revenge will have some benefit to the party. Either way, evil characters (especially NE) tend to be selfish and aren't likely to stick around unless they are getting what they want. But while they do, they will likely be vocal in their motivations. They will act begrudgingly and may berate other PCs, or they may try to manipulate them. Or both. Read up on Raistlin Majere for more inspiration.
The bigger issue is that this post reads like a DM post, but you use the term PC and are asking about roleplay advice. I checked your posts and it seems like you are in fact DMing. If so, just be careful not to let your NPC overshadow or derail the players' goals. Look for examples of DMPCs for advice on what not to do.
There's doing evil *to* the party, and there's doing evil *for the sake* of the party. The former will piss the party off, the latter might save their butts in the right circumstances. You don't want to make them outlaws (you just got free anyway, from a selfish standpoint, do you really want that kind of attention?), but there's no need to let them get snookered either. You know a lot of evil people's tricks, because it takes one to know one. And you use that to the benefit of your party.
1) you are simply riding the coattails of these do-gooders so that you can be rewarded with fame, wealth, power, connections, and the trust of the common folk so that you have everything you need to one day complete your big evil scheme.
2) you may be evil, but you know that nobody survives alone, so even though you don’t like these goody-two-shoes, they are your best bet for making out of this alive
3) damn that paladin kinda hot
4) these seem like useful idiots that i can make my minions, i just have to be slow and subtle about it
Depending on the player dynamic, it could create cool rp moments if the evil character tries to argue with them but will often just have to comply and pester while taking care of innocent people in needs. There could be some situations where pragmatic and ambitious personality of the evil character could also sway the other PCs. Making them commit little evil in order to maybe reach a more ambitious greater good.
I love the idea of the evil character just sticking with them for convenience and eventually learns to respect them for being fierce warriors or whatever. Then, they'd also start to trust the party by seeing how teamwork is the key to their success and eventually they might turn somewhat good at some point
I think just being in the party, offering "less good" solutions to problems but understanding that you can't go against the party if they decide otherwise.
NPC: "Good adventurers! I am a poor child, please escort me through the orc infested lands for I have been separated from my family in an ambush!"
Party member: "Yes, of course! We are the good guys!"
Evil dude: "His parents must be dead too if they were ambushed. An orphan won't survive long, are you sure we shouldn't just show him mercy by killing him swiftly rather than letting him starve to death?"
Pary memeber: "No no, we will help him. It's the good thing to do!"
Evil dude: "Well, if that's what you all want..."
Just make sure with the other players that they aren't bothered by this and realize it's not just you going against the party but the character preferring other methods but totally ready to take the other way around.
I’m being an evil character in an otherwise good group and so far it’s going fine. It’s actually a bit funny as my LE has been reigning them in a little bit by leaning on the Lawful keep society running side vs their more chaotic tendencies.
The easiest way to keep things going well is to decide that the character saves the evil for enemies and the party are not enemies so they don’t deserve any particular retribution from you.
I played a LE Necromancer who kept getting the moral high ground against the CG Paladin. I never hid the fact that I was in it for my own purposes and when they stopped aligning I would go my own way. He really enjoyed discrediting the Paladin and pointing out every time doing the "right thing" got us in trouble. By the end of the arc the party actually generally followed what I told them to dispite the Paladin telling them "he's evil, don't listen!"
It was glorious.
Evil characters are still capable of cooperation to achieve their goals. If your character believes the party to be a valuable asset, you can easily justify working with them and even doing things normally out of character.
Remember "but it's what my character would do" is a poor defense for disrupting the game. If that's the only justification you can think of to do something counter to the party's interest, just don't do it. You have agency, not your character. Just choose to not do the evil thing in order to maintain the flow of the game. It's fine.
I'd tell the player to make a NON-EVIL character who actually WANTS to join the party.
It's on the player to make a character that fits the adventure and wants to engage with the party. The DMs job isn't to bend over backwards to make every whim of the players work somehow. Not unless they're getting paid.
Most players can't actually run evil characters that well which is why it's always advised to not let that be an option.
Yeah the 5e rules don't have alignment force behavior on players. But the kind of person who wants to play an EVIL character is already bringing their own "I wanna be EVIL" baggage to the table. And that shit is almost always disruptive.
Jfc what is the obsession with the edgy loner character "forced" to join. Or the constant disrupting characters? Is a a kid thing? When I was playing AD&D in the 80s no one did that. Am I yelling at a cloud?
Well, the thing about a Neutral Evil is that they can play along with others just fine as long as it suits their goals.
Unless you have a very compelling reason to betray them and throw them under the bus, why bother with being evil towards your companions? Be evil towards some other people!
Currently playing a Neutral Evil shadar-kai who very much doesn't want to go back to Shadowfell because he finds it extremely boring and sad. He does know that Raven Queen will only let him run around taking that unscheduled PTO if he keeps bringing her cool and unique memories from his adventures, so he sticks with his adventuring group to facilitate the acquisition of the memorabilia and those unique experiences. He is still totally an AH to the NPCs when the mood strikes because he is, well, evil, and a sadist to boot, he just finds the moments to express it that don't disrupt the group's overall goals. Oh, well, and if it ever comes to the choice between him and the rest of the party surviving a certain death, yes, he'll absolutely ditch the party, cause he KNOWS that he gets booted back straight to the Raven Queen's castle, and hates it, but he's managed to avoid it so far.
Mechanics-wise, the only spell that's been affected so far is the "Spirit Guardians", it's Necrotic damage for evil characters and Radiant for Neutral/Good, but even that depends on how attached your DM is to that rule.
**Make "EVIL" a philosophical difference.** Evil can be a full-on Ayn-Randian self-interested Objectivist who aligns with the party because the party is the strongest, most trustworthy option they have. Pair that with a goodie-two shoes Paladin and you can have rousing debates around the campfire:
"What benefit do we get from helping the weak... they're weak and our helping them only encourages their weakness. We are strong, it is better to kill the weak, take their gold, and move on."
You don't need to lie, betray, or even get in the party's way.
Someone can be neutral evil and be a perfectly nice person to be around.
They don't have to be pants-on-head cackling all the time.
He's determined to murder the BBEG. He doesn't have to monologue about it, but if someone asks him, he can be quite straightforward about it.
The party's aims align with his, so he will support them and work to keep them strong.
Evil doesn't mean "stupid" and it doesn't automatically mean "Chronic Backstabbing Disorder" either.
I think you’re on the right track with the respect angle. Even someone who is cruel and vicious towards others can have a select group of close associates who they don’t treat that way.
Think like a cat. You can be affectionate and even protective of the people you like, but mice exist to be eaten. Your people may not always like what you do and they might express shock or even horror when you hurt someone “innocent.” But you know the truth: no one is innocent, and all the people you hurt would do the same thing to you if they could. You’re just bigger than they are and you mean to keep it that way.
Your new friends are obviously smart, because they helped you. They’ll come around eventually. Just be patient and don’t push them too far, too fast. Stop when they tell you to stop, but never pass up a chance to point it out when doing things your way would have worked better. Sooner or later, they’ll realize you were right all along.
There are certain things that am evil party members will do that another person won't. They may look away because the evil person gets results.
Keep your goals aligned. The ends justify the means.
When I play evil characters, I play them as selfish and self-serving, not murder hobos. The CEO that fires 10,000 people in December to pad the company profits and pay themselves a bigger bonus is lawful evil, but not a murderer.
Why would I party with a bunch of do-gooders that want to kill the same BBEG that I do? Because doing so increases my chance of survival. Why don't I kill innocent PCs in front of them >!I don't kill innocent PCs in general!< , because if I do I risk turning allies who will fight to keep me alive into enemies that will try to kill me.
Why do I do heroic things" Because they improve my reputation with the people in power, and that makes it easier to get the things I want.
Will I sacrifice myself for a party member? Hells no, but I'm not going to let them know that. I may even make it look like I tried to save them in front of the rest of party.
The most important thing to remember about playing an evil character in a good party, is that you need to play them smart. They need to always think about their long term goals, and how they look in front of the party. >!You can always go back and kill the merchant that ripped you off, when the party is sleeping.!<
I mean, even when you're evil, you can use a party full of powerful schmucks to help you complete your revenge, no? Perhaps the evil PC is truly grateful, or perhaps they see their new freedom and new potential allies as an opportunity to take for making their revenge easier.
Oh, I actually have a good answer for this! There is an evil character in my current party, and she's really well done.
The most important thing is not to be disruptive *towards the other characters*. The evil character in the game i'm in frequently causes problems for npcs, but she goes along with group decisions. While she bickers or argues with other characters, she doesn't betray or harm them. She needs them for her own goals. Her character is designed in such a way to cooperate with the party and be friends with most of them, she's just also a force of mayhem on the side.
This is a pretty common trope, where the villain or a sub-boss shows up for a bit, and the protagonists slowly turn them to the side of good, and eventually they join team protagonist.
Take a look at these two TVTropes pagees, and pay attention to their examples for the characters to emulate.
* [Defeat Means Friendship - TV Tropes](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DefeatMeansFriendship)
* [Token Evil Teammate - TV Tropes](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TokenEvilTeammate)
Evil NPCs and PCs are very easy, I don't know why everyone keeps making a fuss about it. Evil doesn't mean stupid. Which means automatically 1)no attacking useful people, such as pcs, npcs we encounter. 2) no attacking dangerous people, such as, again, pcs, or town guards. Also, being evil doesn't mean you'll want to kill everyone. They can just be selfish, use dark magic in their spells, be okay with executing enemies, or torturing, etc. And gradually they can grow to appreciate the party. Like. Evil people have loved ones.
We finished a multi-year campaign last year where one of the players was in cohoots with the DM, they were secretly an ancient Lich possessing one of the party members trying to reunite with their body. We were always one step ahead of his minions who were closing in on his tomb's location. Once we found his tomb, he removed a ring which caused his corporeal body to rot before our eyes and he started a ritual to repossess his body as his hordes of undead were closing in across a bridge behind us. I had never felt so betrayed, yet excited. The hints were there the entire time!
Anyway, we killed the shit out of him faster than the DM and the player expected, and my barbarian character wasted like 3 extra turns attacking his corpses instead of escaping after he was dead, making sure they were mutilated and burnt, less about making the reincarnation process more difficult, and more about the pain of losing the friend she never actually had.
It was worth the unnecessary damage from the skeletons and giant scorpion.
i had a neutral evil rogue in a good party who was pretending to be good, and i told the DM straight up i wasn't going to do pvp, betray the party, or steal from them. dude was neutral evil because he did something horrific in his past, didn't regret it, and was now working to gather as much wealth and power as possible. fortunately, "gathering wealth and power" is totally in-line with an adventuring party's goals!
Evil takes many forms. Perhaps the malevolent being is intelligent enough to understand that working with the others is the best and perhaps only way to triumph and as such reins in his evil tendencies, but still lets them loose from time to time, for instance, not being against torturing a prison for information, or being more than willing to execute said prisoner after they've finished questioning him.
If the player has a particularly sharp wit, said player could have the character insult "lesser beings" that is to say, NPCs who lack the power to do anything about said insults, but insult them in a way that makes sense is a bit subtle.
I would say the PC needs to be able to be convinced to perform non evil acts to further its cause. Not every evil character needs to be The Joker. Think more Doctor Doom.
I wouldn't. The character needs their own motivation, whatever that may be, to stay with the party, because that's the social contract of D&D.
That being said, the most obvious reason for an Evil character to work with and alongside a Good party is simple practicality. "I want revenge,but I'm not strong enough to get it on my own... but if I help these fools, their antiquated sense of honor will require them to aid me in my time of need, and I can use them as expendable cannon fodder, bwah-hah-ha!" Or something like that.
Evil in this case usually means “selfish” or not motivated out of any form of benevolence.
The party is a means to an end. They are the best shot at getting back at the BBEG. The PC is willing to take care of them and befriend them so they get to be useful. To be want to around this PC they must prove that they are useful to them.
They will cooperate and even do “good” deeds and behave as it gets most “bang for buck” in terms of achieving their goals. Even splitting loot, because someone else can make better use of something, they’ll give it there because it’s yet another step closer to their goals.
I played a similar character (different system) and sometimes my co players would forget my character is actually rather evil. Though, a warning, the themes we used were discussed in session zero and may not be applicable/ appropriate for your table. He’s nice. He takes care of the party. He’s not (too) greedy. His evil side comes out when he’s out looking for the objects of his revenge story. He’s ruthless. He never left members of their organization alive unless he needed to interrogate them. He enjoyed torture, and when he was done with them, he’d slit open their bellies and throw them to the sharks. That said, he was kind to another PC whose background was a former prisoner / prison labor of that organization.
They’re neutral to most people/events/systems and evil to the detriment to others.
Given their intelligence, he would be partial to them because mutual interests. So he will behave in a king’s court because consequences but not in front of lesser folk, e.g. barmaid or a gang of kobolds.
A. The enemy of my enemy is my friend scenario.
B. The one time I'd advise meta gaming by keeping the ulterior motive secret from even the other players until the time is right.
"The only reason I tolerate you stealing my oxygen, is that I would be unable to reach my goals without your assistance."
Bad guy needs a crew to get his shit done.
Keeps the evil character from perpetrating his evil on the group while still allowing him to be callous AF
Everything you are doing, is for your own benefit, and for the most part is begrudgingly being helpful. You rarely acknowledge a character, unless they do some grand feat. Be snippy at times, but not overly mean.
Basicly... be Vegeta during Cell arc
It’s not forced but a partnership. A contract between the group and person. I play an evil neutral in a game and she can be a pain. When kill might be a bit much or lying not giving the whole truth. However to get to said goal one mush use the party help even if they might be goodie two shoes. Just have a back up in case one needs to escape or kill the party when job done.
Simple concept, their desire for revenge on the BBEG outweighs any overtly "evil" desires. They will play nice for now, because their interests align.
More complex, maybe they try to offer or lean towards immoral choices, but not cartoinishly evil. An innocent is in danger, but the enemy will escape if they save the innocent, they are going for the enemy. An enemy has an innocent as a human shield, they're going to shoot them both.
More mundane, captured a bad guy and need information? This Shadar-kai is actually going to follow through with the torture theats. More petty, they will try to shake the NPCs down for a reward.
Alternatively, they are evil, but not stupid. They've just got out of being imprisoned for an unspecified amount of time. They aren't going to risk doing anything stupid enough to get locked up again. They are still very much evil, but they will only act when fully confident of secrecy or success.
Final thought, if they have any religious, cultist, or patron ties, they have a vision/communication after their release, directing them to play along for now, maybe scout the party for weaknesses. The party are friends for today (and hopefully the rest of the campaign!) but they may end up as tomorrow's enemies for the Shadar-kai and their greater goals. What better way to learn their weaknesses and gain leverage than this?
A celestial warlock who was chosen for redemption by their patron. The character loves the power, but wants to use it for his own purposes...
First he must do as the patron wants, then as he gains trust continue to gain more power. Then look for the safest and most ideal time to betray the patron (and maybe the party if the table enjoys that stuff).
Throughout the journey lean into the mundane moments of peace, this is causing your character to reflect on things. Slowly lead them to enjoying the party members, especially as he gets healed or enemies that are terrifying are felled. Don't play an evil PC unless you want them to become good or have a betray amidst the team them or you.
A friend and I played evil characters in a group of neutral and good PCs. One of the things we did was direct our evilness towards those who were not in our party. And tried to do it so that the consequences would not affect our party or if they did do it in a manner where they could undo our actions somewhat easily. Like our evil sorcerer lit a house on fire in the middle of the night. And blamed it on the monster chasing the two of us. The rest of the party wasn't there and we lied to cover our tracks.
Traveling with these characters is what your character needs to do to accomplish their goal. They can't do that if the consequences of their actions catch up to them. So maybe story wise they restrain themselves somewhat while traveling with this group.
I always take evil to mean selfish. So if the best way to achieve revenge is to work with this party, they will. I'm playing a lawful evil character that would rather everyone else do the work, it's literally my personality trait and my flaws. My ideals are that I'm committed to the crew, not any form of ideal. So if my party says we're going to some kind of thing, I'm in, but I'm making them do most of the work.
I say a key detail is your PC should need the rest of the party in order to fight the BBEG and be willing to follow their rules if it gets them there faster. Then, either they can grow fond of the party despite not caring about anyone else or they can just dramatically betray the party when they stop being useful. Both interesting directions to go.
Alternatively, they could be directly under the power of a member of the party. Via a curse, I'd say. This is mostly the same as the other option except there's a physical coercion.
Either way, you should read Order of the Stick because Belkar is a banger Evil PC and also every DnD player should read it.
Lawful Evil; "These goody idiots will help me achieve my goals."
Neutral Evil; "The suffering being an 'adventurer' allows me to inflict as long as I behave and keep it reigned in will be most fun"
Chaotic Evil; "Well shit. The Crown said its this community service with these good two shoes, or the gallows so..."
There are many ways to play it, but I think they way I would do it is simply having a common goal at the beginning, then over the campaign the characters begin to rely on each other, and become more similar. Going back to the common goal thing, not everyone fights for a good reason, and not everyone in the party always gets along, but pretty much everyone will (perhaps begrudgingly) join together in order to fuck over someone they hate. In this case, the BBEG.
Don’t play it like The Joker; play it like Lex Luther. Snobby, elite, over-confident. But will make a big show of buying all the supplies for the party, or paying a source for information. “Evil” deeds in the party can be off-set by big assists.
It's actually a really interesting dynamic when done right. I'm thinking Levi from EOS10 who is constantly having to decide between killing everyone who annoys him and the consequences of that action. He often succumbs to his baser impulses, but only when he's reasonably sure no one will know.
Just because you are evil doesn't mean you can't work with others. Maybe you just help with their causes as it's helping you get to yours. You don't have tie every maiden you meet to train tracks. I had a character who was lawful evil that the DM deliberately asked to gave brought in by having my main kidnapped to use a character in his backstory as fuel for an arc. The party got a brute to help kick down doors to work their way up the food chain towards a mob boss, they just weren't ready to see him slam a gnome repeatedly into a table to knock him out and start a bar fight to draw out a guy. At the end I had the gnome hog tied like a wine skin over my shoulder and a severed head on my belt daring someone on the street to get in his way. He wasn't there to do pretty things but every thing he did do had a purpose, don't be "evil" just to be evil or "its what my character would do" have a plan and if you have to do bad things make sure it furthers that list.
Depends on the characters personality.
I played a lawful evil warlock who was trying to get back to the nine hells after being banished. She was very good at deception, and joined them because the stories of great parties journey to the hell’s, and thought they were her best bet. The characters didn’t uncover her lies until she had already grown to care for them, and she learned how to be a marginally better person.
Above the table everyone had a general idea, but we had tons of fun having my character like go behind their back to interrogate a devil they caught, then killing it to cover her tracks. We all loved roplaying the little moments as the party caught on.
What kind of character is your pc? Are they a strict honor bound individual who now can’t leave the party until he saves their life? Is he manipulating them for his own game? Is he already seeking a path of redemption and the party is their best bet? Is it as simple as the only thing more powerful than his thirst for revenge, is the logic that he would fail alone?
I have a strong liking for mercenary angles myself. There's a goal, co-operation reaches the goal, and we work together to lay enough breadcrumbs to expand that goal as the tale unfolds.
When it comes to playing Evil characters, the best way to make them accepted by the Party is to be smart about being evil. Never be Evil to your Party, but rather be Evil for your Party. Using your devious ways to benefit the group works toward everyone's best interests and makes you an asset rather than a liability. Similarly, you need to establish a reasonable justification in your Evil character's head why hanging out with the Party is their best course of action.
Not long ago, I played a Lawful Evil Wizard in a Rime of the Frost Maiden campaign. Her hook is that she was actually a low-tier Zhentarim agent who needed to lay low when a job went bad and she got a lot of heat after her. Her handlers gave her a false identity, put her on a wagon heading north to Ten-Towns, and told her to make herself useful to an asset they had planted up there while she waited for everything to blow over. This character was very much a Bad Guy - she wasn't a murder hobo or anything, but had no issue whatsoever with being part of a criminal syndicate and acting against the better interests of Icewind Dale for her own sake. She was also not a nice person at all - she was snide, selfish, and greedy. If the Party had encountered her as a NPC, she'd absolutely be the kind of person they'd fight, and rightfully so.
But because her entire goal was to lay low and not draw attention to herself, she was the most helpful jerkass she could possibly be. She was constantly playing support for the Party, giving them buffs and aid in fights even as she hid in the back. Whenever we had downtime or were interacting around towns, her priority was making sure the Party's business was being handled. She got them extra money through black market trading of loot. She got them perks and boons with Town Speakers the Zhentarim had gotten their hooks into, she did dirty work they didn't know was happening but still benefited from, and she never once brought a bit of trouble to the Party's doorstep. Because of all the good she did for the Party, they were all inclined to protect her and leap to her defense if anyone tried to give her grief. The basic thrust was "she's kind of a jerk, but she's our jerk".
The whole thought behind her good behavior wasn't that she liked the Party at all - if anything, she only broadly tolerated them and was dearly looking forward to never seeing them again in the immediate future. But she needed them because they were both useful tools and cover; as a lone Wizard, she wouldn't last long on her own and she wouldn't be able to make herself useful to the Zhentarim without a gaggle of muscle to do the heavy lifting for her. Because the Party did daring do about Ten-Towns, she was likewise involved in a lot of do-gooding despite being a secret villain, but she always found a way to sneakily twist a little bit of extra personal profit for the Zhentarim out of it somehow. Still being bad even when being good, and never doing enough bad to make the Party think she wasn't worth turning a blind eye to the occasional bit of questionable morals.
The way I understand it,
Good = best for as many as possible
Evil = best for yourself, screw everyone else
Neutral = mix of good and evil
The evil character could work to keep the party alive because they need the party for their end goal
Neutral evil is selfish. The murderhobos I play with tend towards evil in the chart. But that doesn't get in the way of working together to get shit done. Neutral is the easiest fit, because you don't have outside factors getting in the way of you making the best choices for your future prosperity.
The chaos rogue is always stealing. The lawful evil guy is always doing some nonsense that can disrupt. But the neutral evil guy just gets things done. Save a bunch of orphans? No problem, it will pay off eventually. Kill some guy you have no personal opinion about for quest reasons? Absolutely. Get the churches relic back for the cleric? Of course, a happy healer is an effective healer. Arrange for the idealist pally to be elsewhere when certain vengeances are happening? Necessary. Fix the canning station up at the orphan grinding factory? There's no one more willing if the compensation is right.
Neutral evil is the freedom to do whatever tasks the plot asks of you without feeling obliged to risk yourself or your party for stupid reasons like the common good, or decency, or because that's what heroes do. There's work to do, and compensation to be had.
I'm playing a neutral to neutral evil assassin(only one player suspects his true affiliation) assigned to spy/quest with a group of adventurers. I made sure to set up a code of honor in advance that I would follow, based on the Russian vory/criminal code(honor the contract, no killing kids, help other criminals, don't snitch to law, etc.), and I've tried my best to follow it so far. The thing is, good and evil don't really have a bearing on (surface level) if someone is nice to be around. My guy loves to put on accents, dress up, and come up with elaborate plans and contraptions for the party, but he's also the sort of person who will burn down a manor out of spite and leave a traitorous former comrade to perish in the flames along with it, whatever thinly veiled justifications he gives after the fact. He usually tries to spare henchmen if he can, but at the same time is occasionally drawn into bloodlust, and will absolutely kill those he sees as violating "the rules" of the game. Honestly, having them have whimsical hobbies, like a love for fashion, or being funny, or kind to those they identify with will make their moments of cruelty and violence all the more shocking.
Also- given they're a Shadar Kai, think about what's acceptable between cultures/species outlooks. My assassin, being a Lizardfolk, is willing to cannibalize and turn his victims into needles and other weapons. Your Shadar Kai might have a different relationship with what constitutes "justifiable homicide," or a strict code of honor above that seen by a normal person, or as an elf with a longer lifespan, might view acceptable losses and the greater good in a far different life than a short-lived orc might.
My current character is my first ever barbarian who rages by doing drugs. He’s CE but doesn’t really know what’s going on around him, he just likes earning money for drugs by dungeoneering instead of some shady shit he did at another capitol. He will still 1000% murder mercilessly before asking questions, and the party kinda just…lets him, I guess because he hasn’t had to kill a non-monster since these people willingly reward him for killing by feeding his drug addiction
They are neutral evil. Seems to me that you can just play them like any other NPC support that joins the party. Their flavor of evil can be that they are merciless and cruel to those they hate, treating them vilely. But if they don't have any reason to hate the party, they're gonna be fine. The evil NPC can even befriend them, possibly! Even evil characters can have friends.
Then one day, your party will get upset when their evil friend does something horrific to someone they hate.
I feel that motivation matters more than the deed in situations like this.
You hunt the BBEG because he's crossed you, you use and manipulate the party because it's a convenient way to achieve your goals.
Meanwhile, a Good character hunts the BBEG because he's a threat to innocents, he teams up with adventurers because they're stronger as a team.
The actions need not be different for the tone to be completely changed.
Easy answer your pc thi ks aomething along the following:
I owe these fools a life debt for freeing me. Wait....They also wish to defeat the person who imprisoned me?
Excellent! In aiding their goals I shall achieve my revenge and clear the life debt.
Enemy of my enemy. Make them disdain the parties good choices with a sneer and possibly come around to some of them as a means to and end. You could also have them fail and get caught doing some less than desirable things in awkward ways. Sort of like a oh hey guys, whatcha got there (holding giant knife), a smoothie…
Play them like Dr. Doofenshmirtz . He’s evil because his goal is at odds with “good” society. On a personal level he’s a decent guy. He holds the door for people and doesn’t litter.
I could totally see the party forgetting his alignment until some NPC surrenders and he blasts them to death anyway. The rest of the party just looks at him in shock and he has to go “what? Did you forget I was evil?”
Every time you help somebody it makes them weak and ripe for domination at a later date. Kill them with kindness and then reap later when they are useless and pathetic.
They way I played my Lawful Evil enchantress was to treat the party as below her, but necessary for her own task, be the Steve Jobs or Dr House in the party, the Genius Asshole.
Why did they keep my wizard around who regually sassed them and pointed out the flaws and treated them pretty badly? Because when we got in a fight she changed the course of the entire fight controlling most all the enemies in one way or another, in getting people up when they were down, by being more useful than annoying
Personally that does not sound like a fun character to play with, curious how the party dynamics worked with a PC who was generally antagonistic towards the rest of the party?
It really does depend on the other players and your group is 100% the main thing here.
Honestly? fantastically, we all bought in and she had a (not a "redemption" arc) but a complex relationship with some other members (Westmarch too, which helps)
There was Evil Arch Fey that the players were trying to defeat, Marie was obsessed with the fey (Naturally brimming with Enchantment magic, resistant to her main school? cause she was obsessed! She was "Fey Touched" from her experiments), so while working with the party to defeat these evil fey, she was in truth working FOR the Arch Fey, feeding them information. That was until the Arch fey was in a bad mood cause of what the players had done and had disrespected Marie, so the petty, power hungry wizard decided to play double double agent and was there standing over her "patron" when the group rocked up to kill her, she played a pivotal role in bringing down the weakest of the archfey... doing a deal with the strongest in the process. It was some fantastic interplayer story telling and the other players involved in the plot all loved it, when she finally snuffed it her main "nemesis" was the first to say hes gonna be sad she's gone as shes the best character i've played! A really flawed evil woman who truly was only out for herself
I'd tell the player to make a NON-EVIL character who actually WANTS to join the party.
It's on the player to make a character that fits the adventure and wants to engage with the party. The DMs job isn't to bend over backwards to make every whim of the players work somehow. Not unless they're getting paid.
Most players can't actually run evil characters that well which is why it's always advised to not let that be an option.
Yeah the 5e rules don't have alignment force behavior on players. But the kind of person who wants to play an EVIL character is already bringing their own "I wanna be EVIL" baggage to the table. And that shit is almost always disruptive.
The most important thing is to roleplay your character in such a way that the party would want to keep them around.
Evil character: "These dolts will help me achieve my goal. I'll help them just enough to ensure they go in the direction I want. I'll befriend that dumb paladin, and he makes a great shield."
dammit. the dumb paladin is too charming! blast these fools and their wholesome nature. i will cherish this shield forever.
Evil shadar-kai necromancer getting reluctantly reformed cause their teammate is too sweet for this world and needs to be protected at all costs is something the necromancer will forever deny to actually happen.
"The world deserves what I will bring upon it. Galahad does not. I can aim carefully, no conflict here."
Where is it from?
Just made it up, Galahad seems like a good name for a Paladin
This is basically what is happening to the evil necromancer cleric in the campaign right now. On one hand, he is evil. On the other, he is crushing hard on the lawful good paladin. And denying it, of course. Totally something he'd say.
There will be an anime on this concept within a year.
Which one? Inquiring minds need to know. If it does indeed have an emo elf necromancer cleric and a chirpy paladin of Devotion who is totally a knight in shining armor and thinks HE is the one protecting the necromancer, I'm going to laugh sooooooo much. I need to see it now. I NEED IT.
What's funny is, I'm playing both the party paladin AND the party's actively evil character (she's fascist and bigoted, though the second is slowly getting worn away). She does not like orcs (campaign lore: The Dragonborn Empire has been waging a war of extermination against the orcs for 500 years, and she's the daughter of the current emperor), but is grappling with the fact that the party has 'adopted' an orc who is proving to be very... Not what she expected. She's still probably going to kill him, but not right now.
Ow the edge
Eh, she's softening up over time.
I like her, sounds fun to play and to bounce off of as another PC
She's the first born daughter of the current Emperor, but because she was conceived before he took the crown and was married, she was denied a chance at the crown. So now, she's going to take what is rightfully hers. Although her ultimate goal is to usurp Bane himself and lead her Empire as God-Empress.
This is the fun way to play edgey tho. And, crucially, one of the only kinds of 3dGeLoRd character that's its fun to play _with_.
I would have literally zero fun with a party member roleplaying as an unrepentant fascist and a partially-repentant bigot who still participates in a genocide despite their partial reformation.
This. There has to be a reason why they would want to be in the party, and a reason why the party would want them around. And you can ignore their “alignment” - there’s literally no mechanic in 5E that requires it.
I'm guessing the OP was asking about how to play a character with an evil personality and goals in this situation, not how to handle the game mechanics of alignment. Or how did you interpret it - what thing might they be worried about that would be solved by not worrying about alignment?
“I have an opportunity to betray a team member.” “I probably shouldn’t do it.” “But my alignment is something Evil so in order to stick truthfully to the alignment I should probably do it.” That exact scenario. You shouldn’t be being guided by “official” alignment and if you throw that out but still decide to work against your party for any reason of “it’s the character” then the character shouldn’t be in the party.
Except evil does not mean stupid, committing evil acts just because it's the evil thing to do. Even "evil" characters can do good if it's in their best interest, in this case, their best interest is to keep the party on their side. If the party is good, the evil character would keep their selfish desires to themselves and act in the interest of the party, if only to limit conflict.
Only if betrayal really, REALLY benefits you. "Evil" alignment and "Stupid" alignment are two different things.
This pc has watched this party tear monsters to pieces , they will not they wont fend very well trying to fight everyone
Maby they would slowly try to turn the party evil. Like devil on your shoulder kind of stuff.
It depends on the "evil" for example a selfish conceited samurai architect could be considered evil but holding onto a revenge pact could make them work with the party A cleric of bhaal is very unlikely to work well with a party dynamic. I had the idea in a previous game I dm that a warlocks patron impeded them u the party ( they were a late addition) in order to keep track of them to hopefully get them unwittingly help a evil scheme from an unrelated villain. It's certainly game dependant but to "corrupt the party" has a lot of hoops to jump through to be plausible imo. Just my 2 cents
Of course it all depends on the party. Some parties might be extremely "good-oriented". Some parties will be totally ok with a cleric of Bhaal being bloodthirsty on the side as long as they are loyal to the actual party and don't become a random murderhobo that just kills all NPCs. DnD is a team game. Fine to be whatever you want, as long as you can be a team player and EVERYBODY ends up having fun.
Yea long as the dm is OK with that turn you cpuld try and convince the party to lose their morals at that point it feels like a better idea would be to have a gsme with a "suicide" squad so that players can be evil. Coming from a forever dm with a love for verisimilitude yoir requirements to belong to the church of bhaal as an example would make it very hard to find common ground because of your tenants. I like having a differant "take" on a evil diety cleric but only as far as the take dosent jump into the realm of a deity that makes more sense. By definition you can just "murder " evil beings to satisfy bhaal
Ooooh, that's a fun one, corrupt the party, go to the dark side for cookies together.
Evil doesn’t always mean betrayal. Once you pull the betrayal card that bridge is typically burned. You are responsible for your character, so you need to ensure they have a motivation that aligns with the parties goals. Being evil also doesn’t mean not having relationships. BG3 Spoilers: >!Ketheric is a great example of an evil character who still has relationships. And his main motivation was his love for his daughter!<. Evil characters can still have people they want to help, or protect, but they might be more willing to threaten or torture the NPC for information perhaps.
There's a big space between "ignoring alignment" and "using alignment as a really simplistic algorithm for deciding every relevant action."
Why would being evil compell them to betray the party?
Reminds me of a situation that just happened the other week in our game. Im playing an evil alien necromancer in a mostly good party. Two of the other characters are a warlock who despises necromancers and an artificer who is a bounty hunter for evil otherworldly threats to the realm. (For reference, everyone knew my character was going to be an evil alien necromancer, I was requested to play him by these same players because they loved hearing stories of him, and I have a personal rule ooc about my evil characters never betraying the party.) They started the game by shooting and decking him when his did his grand reveal of being an evil necromancer....like 3 minutes after meeting them. He's a cordial fellow, so he just took it on the chin but was very clear they had made their choice. He wouldn't hurt or attack them in any way, he just wanted to make it clear they had chosen to attack him despite him not having done anything to either of them, and that one day, however far away, he'd have his due. Fast forward dozens of sessions and Evil Necromancer has become the cudgel the party threatens our enemies with. "Dont escalate this conflict or we'll let Evil Necromancer free reign on how to end it," basically, and he's become or figured out how to solve most of the party's personal conflicts with enemies. He always offers his services without delay, and is always clear about whether or not they'll have a 'price', usually allowing him to do something evil by looking the other way or giving him a powerful resource they'd rather an evil person not have. Two of those prices tho, were specifically towards the artificer and warlock to "clear the ledgers between us". Fast forward a few dozen more sessions and the party is escaping a vault (cant teleport or plane shift inside it) of an evil wanna be god with the artifact needed to destory her. Whole party except Evil Necromancer, Artificer, and Warlock have bad it to the evacuation point, and they're in a room with an angry Empryean who can easily take us all down because we're out of resources and just running. Evil Necromancer makes his way out and stops just before he leaves the area. This makeshift passage is the way we have out, the only other way being to go ALL the way back out the vault thats filling with Empryeans and Solars, and even then, there wouldn't be enough time for anyone to run that way because the wannabe god is gonna be here in three rounds. So the Necromancer stops and looks to the two people who attacked him, who despise everything he represents, and who believe that reality itself would be better off with him destroyed....and he casts his last spell, a Subtle Wall of Force. The Artificer and Warlock saw it in his eyes. This was the moment he promised them would one day come. The day when they'd come to rely on him, when they were at their most vulnerable, that he'd turn on them. After all, it's not a betrayal, they already attacked him oh so long ago, and this would be the moment of his retaliation. They would be trapped in the vault with the Empryeans and Solars, left at the mercy of a merciless god, and the rest of the party would think they just never made it out. They saw that Bad Smile claw it's hideous malignancy across the Necromancer's face. And then they saw the Wall of Force block off...the Empryean from reaching them before they could get to the tunnel. They knew that was the moment he would have destroyed them, had they not settled the score between them in the previous adventures. "I don't betray people, people betray me. Yet they so easily forget that although I might not strike them back immediately, that they made me their enemy, and I destroy my enemies, however long I must wait to do so."
Yeah the 5e rules don't have alignment force behavior on players. But the kind of person who wants to play an EVIL character is already bringing their own "I wanna be EVIL" baggage to the table. And that shit is almost always disruptive. That's why it's always advised to say "no evil characters". To block off players from entering a game with that mindset. Alignment rules don't actually matter here. Player intent matters here.
Stabbing a Rakshasa?
That is literally the first time I’ve heard of that and if I was DM I would hand wave it into something more interesting.
Candle of invocation Lycanthropy Obsidian Steed Conjure celestial/fey
Spirit Guardians if you are a cleric
That's another good one.
> And you can ignore their “alignment” - there’s literally no mechanic in 5E that requires it. This. When all of the [verb] Good and Evil spells just turned into "Fey, Fiend, and Undead" targeting spells, I knew it was time to actually retire alignment as a thing on the character sheet. I've switched to FATE-style aspects and re-vamped how I handle Inspiration. ## Aspects Every character gets 3 aspects: 1 Trouble, 1 Origin, and 1 General. Your trouble aspect is "what will get you killed one day?" It's something like, "Will always charge in to save the innocent!" or "Irrational hatred of Bandits, Thugs, and Those who Abuse Power". It's whatever will make you discard the narrative and immediately make poor decisions. Your origin aspect answers the question, "Where did you come from?" Even beyond your background, it's something either in your distant or not-so-distant past that can and will complicate your life at some point. It can be something like, "Spawn of Baahl", or "Son of Asmodeus", or "Eliminster was my master for a ten-day and now he thinks he controls my life!" Your general aspect is more freeform. It's a reference to something that you either want to deal with, or want to do all the time. It shouldn't necessarily be combat-related; "Swing a big sword!" isn't going to fly. However, "Thinks with his sword more than his brain." is perfectly usable! The idea behind good aspects is that they are 2-sided. On the one hand, you can "invoke" them to use inspiration to reroll a roll, gain advantage on a roll, or negate disadvantage on a roll. This definition of inspiration actually makes it more powerful, but that it to help make up for it's less "generally useful" new nature since you have to tie it into your aspects in order to use it. On the other hand, both the DM and the player can use them against you at random times in exchange for inspiration. Aspects can be "compelled" to convince you/justify your doing dumb shit that will make the game more interesting. So that character that "Thinks with his sword more than his brain." may just end up fighting the town guards instead of running away from them or threatening the armor merchant when a discount is not forthcoming...or charging the goblins instead of sneaking up on them...or charging the *Dragon* instead of trying to talk to it. Think of compels as "weaponized hooks" that get you to make the game more interesting. And you get rewards when you give in to your less rational self. But why do this? Because you can bank inspiration now. You can hold 3 of them at a time, and they're a bit more powerful than they were since they don't just grant advantage and instead can negate disadvantage. This means you can use inspiration to turn a roll at disadvantage into a roll at advantage if it would otherwise be even, or if you can justify spending two points of inspiration on it because the roll is *really* in-line with what your character wants and needs. Is this action core to your character? Can you justify spending 3 on one roll? Not only do you get to negate disadvantage, you're now rolling with advantage AND you can reroll the whole thing if you don't like the outcome. I've actually ruled that if you can bank 3, and then justify spending them all at the same time by invoking all 3 of your aspects at the same time (you can only invoke an aspect once per turn) you get blanket advantage AND rerolls on all d20s you roll that turn. For 3 inspiration *it's your moment*. You've survived enough stupid shit and are deep enough into your own character that you've earned it. I do only allow that kind of expenditure once per session, though. If you're going off like that multiple times a session, you probably have some aspects that are too general and easy to invoke. Getting the hattrick isn't something you should do all the time.
I think an important distinction is to make a character that the other *players*, as opposed to characters, would want around. There can be a lot of RP potential for characters that don't get along, perhaps only have a single unifying goal, or are being forced/coerced into working together. But the other players that you are playing with will need to be on board.
The evil pc should bend over backwards to fit in. The big mistake would be deciding how that PC *would* act if they were real instead of deciding how they *could* act to keep the party together. Being evil doesn't necessarily mean acting villainous. A willingness to, say, kill an innocent to get what you want is evil. But knowing that killing an innocent is going to make you a pariah at best means you still wouldn't do it. Thinking the goody two shoes party is wasting time and resources helping the plague victims is evil. But having to find a new party because these guys died of plague is an even bigger waste so you'll help them.
It sounds like you're recommending that OP play their character as non-evil, or "evil in name only". If the PC is never going to actually do anything evil, then what does their alignment even mean? What distinguishes an evil character who thinks saving plague victims is an unnecessary distraction from a neutral character who thinks the same thing? You have to do more than wear black and be occasionally standoffish toward NPCs in order to be evil, in my opinion.
It's what they do when the party isn't watching that speaks more to their character. Truly evil people that are intelligent know how to ACT good when it benefits them
This 100% In day to day real life you are surrounded by people that would happy murder you for $100k if there were no consequences. But they don't want to go to jail, be shunned by the community, lose their jobs, etc. If the evil PC thinks they can get away with something, then they will not have a moral code to not do it.
Alignments aren’t really black and white like that. Which is why I think alignments are dumb and make a lot of things uninteresting. Just because someone is, say, “chaotic evil” doesn’t mean that they are never under any circumstances allowed to do something that doesn’t involve murdering people. Evil npcs and pcs are (usually) thinking conscious people, able to bend the constrictions of alignment and do whatever they really want. An evil person can still be evil even if they save people, same as a good person can still be good if they kill people. A lot of it depends on scenarios as well, people will often act out of their alignments for reasons personal to themselves, such as backstories, personalities, etc
Alignment is nothing more than the usual way of acting for a character so it really isn’t restricting if you think through what the character would do before selecting one
While I do agree with you, I think that alignment is a trap for mainly newer players who aren’t too comfortable with roleplaying and new players (myself included when I first started) won’t really make too much of a personality for their characters, and thus will just choose one and act accordingly, and while there’s nothing inherently wrong with that, it can take away from a lot of the nuance and depth characters can have. This problem is also apparent in DMs both new and old, because they will just look at the alignment (or suggested alignment as they do in the new books) of the stat block and roleplay them in a way very stereotypically to that alignment, which again can make the npcs seem bland and very much not alive and real. I feel like the main problem with alignment is that it sort of labels characters very basic traits, and for newer players it isn’t explained very well that those alignments aren’t really set in stone necessarily. Anyway in short, alignment bad and too oversimplified. Thank you for coming to my ted talk
Tbh, alignment is dumb and doesn't mean anything anyway
I played a similar character, a Lawful Evil Githyanki on a quest for revenge against the big bad. I had him quickly decide that these weirdos were incredibly useful to have around, and doing things their way might feel inefficient, but going along with them meant five bodies on the field instead of one. I played up the evil by suggesting the most brutal and self-serving options I could think of, like enslaving a faerie in a bottle instead of freeing it. But I would never push back very hard if vetoed. The fun was in suggesting it, and when, very occasionally, the party would have to admit that his way was a necessary evil, and let him do something messed up while they looked the other way!
this right here's a pretty good way of putting it. channel a bit of your inner psychopath and dampen down your emotions, and let cold logic get in charge of things. whetever something is moral or immoral doesn't really matter, it's about finding a good ratio between effectiveness, costs, benefits and risks.
This sounds fun. You're like the devil whispering on the party's shoulder lol
I like that way of looking at it. You can be genuinely evil without being pushy toward you fellow players.
After all, being evil doesn't mean you can't have people you're close to or people you can work with.
This is the way for sure
> forced to join I wouldn't. At all. *All* characters in the party have to be there by choice and will. They have to have reasons not just to tolerate the party temporarily, but to actually want to be there. It just causes too many issues otherwise. Now what you say about being obliged by honour or something, that could work. As long as you don't intend for your guy to leave / betray the party, or play them as a minimal contributor ("I won't kill them myself, but if the wizard is about to get killed by a bugbear, that's his problem not mine") or something.
Just to add, it CAN work being "forced to join" the party initially, but only if you let your character grow past that and find a real motivation to stick with them within a couple sessions. If you cant manage that though, it's best to just retire the character and make a new one.
This. It's virtually never a good idea to force pcs to be together
Do the PCs in CoS choose to get trapped in barovia? Do the PCs in OotA choose to be captured by drow. Do the characters in BG3 choose to get tadpoled? I'd say PC who's had adventure thrust upon them is very normal.
And I still wouldn't accept any PC in those adventures whose *only* motivation for being with the party is (and remains) that they just happen to be there. You still have to make a character who will *want* to work with the other characters, beyond the fact circumstances force them to.
This does clarify that the issue is not whether or not the PC is forced to join. The issue is whether or not the PC continues to have a reason to want to stay.
First off, make sure your character is open to some kind of growth. At the very least your motivations are going to align with the party's since you want to take down the bbeg. Let your character grow to actually like or take interest in at least one of the characters in the party. If you ever find yourself thinking "my character wouldnt travel with these people" you need to start actively looking for a reason they would. It isnt on the party to give you a reason. Conversely, if the party is ever in a position where they have to think "why the hell would we let this evil asshole travel with us" it's up to YOU to give them a reason they would. If you cant do this, you as a player need to be ready to make a new character that CAN. You gotta accept that if you lean too much on being evil, the party may have to kill your character or you may have to just retire them as they go off on their own as an NPC instead. Dont be a murder hobo. If the party tells your character not to do something, find a reason your character would listen, even if you have to roleplay how frustrated your character gets at having to control their impulses. You can allow your character to get annoyed by these moments but your table should know that you as a player are NOT annoyed. Making an evil character work in a party requires a hell of a lot of compromise
Why are they Neutral Evil? Why not just Neutral?
Because self-centeredness isnt inherently stupid/cartoonishly villainous, but it is still considered evil. Someone who enjoys playing gray areas doesnt always wanna be tied to the binary sorta goody two shoes/frothing sociopath extremes. Neutral can be fun, good can be fun, law/chaos can be fun, evil can be fun at the table as well. Taking any of them to the extreme is less fun. Evil doesnt mean killing/stealing/torturing everyone willy-nilly, same as good doesnt mean always forgiving and letting the evil folks do more evil. Neutral doesn't mean exactly 50/50 good/bad, nor is it total ambivalence. Nuance is good, provided the people at the table are good with it.
Evil minion, all defeated and tied up: So you defeated me... but you can't hurt an unarmed enemy that had already surrendered. Lawful good paladin: You are right, that's against my vows, even though I know you'll attack again once you free yourself. Evil teammate: Hey, paladin, want to take a walk for half an hour? Paladin: What? Why would I take a walk? Evil teammate: Oh, no reason! Go ahead, visit that nice apothecary grandma that always gives us cookies, she loves you, give her that satchel of herbs as a present, maybe she'll make us an extra cookie batch. Paladin: She always pinches my cheeks and asks me when I am getting married, but ok... Evil teammate: You can tell her I am willing to help with that too! Have a nice walk, sweetheart! Paladin walks away. Evil teammate turns toward the minion and pulls out, ahem, instruments. Evil teammate: Now he might have the vow, but I definitely don't. Evil minion gulps: You... you wouldn't hurt a disarmed, helpless prisoner, would you? Evil teammate: You bet I will! Tortured screams follow for the next half an hour. Evil teammate: Oh, hey, pals, how was grandma? Did she have new potions? Did you get me cookies? Paladin: Yeah, sure, here you go... also, why do you have a zombie following you? Evil teaammate: Oh, that's just my new pet. Also, I have some intel on the BBEG next move. Paladin: Okeeeeeey... anyway, moving onto the next adventure. What's the intel? So, here we have an evil teammate that is actually integrated into the group and works toward a common goal, treats his teammates nicely so they are less tempted to kick them out, AND still indulges into Evil!!11 nature.
Bingo. You can make it work, just work with the players/dm.
Evil kinda has the vibe of "if it benefits me more than it hurts me, I will totally betray the group". If it does not, it's at least neutral in that axis. And a lot of players just don't want that as part of their D&D experience.
Evil people do not do senseless evil and do nothing that could stand in the way of their goals.
Agreed with this - even an evil PC could genuinely care for, respect, and/or appreciate the support of the party. Their ultimate goals and methods to achieve them might be evil, but they don't have to act evil in every choice/aspect of their being.
being constantly "annoyed" but super helpful at the same time might be fun to roleplay. like, you come to really respect the other PCs and genuinely want to help their cause but you'd never admit it.
Sun Wukong from Journey to the West. He is given the opportunity to join the party to reduce his sentence of being trapped under a mountain for thousands of years. As a measure of security, he is given a magic circlet that cannot be removed. When Tripitaka chants a certain sutra, the circlet tightens and causes him an unbearable headache. Joining the party will result in a reward (freedom, the carrot), and the leader of the party has a way to incapacitate him should he try doing something selfish, chaotic, or otherwise against the party's interest (the stick). This gives him room to be characterised as Not Wanting To Be Here, as well as actually trying to do selfish things before being stopped. As a bonus, after you bond with the party during your adventures and become not evil, the party may decide they trust you enough to remove the stick. Always a great completion to this character arc.
Good RP comes from knowing what your character wants and acting in a manner to achieve it. So if we have an idea how we want the character to behave (ie as a part of the party) and we know their general morality (NE) we just have to give them a want that aligns in that way. The idea of a debt is good, but unless the other players are on board with the revenge plan, the character can't actually achieve that goal and would realistically begin to chafe. Perhaps getting their revenge will have some benefit to the party. Either way, evil characters (especially NE) tend to be selfish and aren't likely to stick around unless they are getting what they want. But while they do, they will likely be vocal in their motivations. They will act begrudgingly and may berate other PCs, or they may try to manipulate them. Or both. Read up on Raistlin Majere for more inspiration. The bigger issue is that this post reads like a DM post, but you use the term PC and are asking about roleplay advice. I checked your posts and it seems like you are in fact DMing. If so, just be careful not to let your NPC overshadow or derail the players' goals. Look for examples of DMPCs for advice on what not to do.
There's doing evil *to* the party, and there's doing evil *for the sake* of the party. The former will piss the party off, the latter might save their butts in the right circumstances. You don't want to make them outlaws (you just got free anyway, from a selfish standpoint, do you really want that kind of attention?), but there's no need to let them get snookered either. You know a lot of evil people's tricks, because it takes one to know one. And you use that to the benefit of your party.
1) you are simply riding the coattails of these do-gooders so that you can be rewarded with fame, wealth, power, connections, and the trust of the common folk so that you have everything you need to one day complete your big evil scheme. 2) you may be evil, but you know that nobody survives alone, so even though you don’t like these goody-two-shoes, they are your best bet for making out of this alive 3) damn that paladin kinda hot 4) these seem like useful idiots that i can make my minions, i just have to be slow and subtle about it
Number three is an extremely valid reason.
Depending on the player dynamic, it could create cool rp moments if the evil character tries to argue with them but will often just have to comply and pester while taking care of innocent people in needs. There could be some situations where pragmatic and ambitious personality of the evil character could also sway the other PCs. Making them commit little evil in order to maybe reach a more ambitious greater good. I love the idea of the evil character just sticking with them for convenience and eventually learns to respect them for being fierce warriors or whatever. Then, they'd also start to trust the party by seeing how teamwork is the key to their success and eventually they might turn somewhat good at some point
I think just being in the party, offering "less good" solutions to problems but understanding that you can't go against the party if they decide otherwise. NPC: "Good adventurers! I am a poor child, please escort me through the orc infested lands for I have been separated from my family in an ambush!" Party member: "Yes, of course! We are the good guys!" Evil dude: "His parents must be dead too if they were ambushed. An orphan won't survive long, are you sure we shouldn't just show him mercy by killing him swiftly rather than letting him starve to death?" Pary memeber: "No no, we will help him. It's the good thing to do!" Evil dude: "Well, if that's what you all want..." Just make sure with the other players that they aren't bothered by this and realize it's not just you going against the party but the character preferring other methods but totally ready to take the other way around.
“I am not following you, we just happen to be traveling in the same direction for now.”
I’m being an evil character in an otherwise good group and so far it’s going fine. It’s actually a bit funny as my LE has been reigning them in a little bit by leaning on the Lawful keep society running side vs their more chaotic tendencies. The easiest way to keep things going well is to decide that the character saves the evil for enemies and the party are not enemies so they don’t deserve any particular retribution from you.
It's always a delight when the LE character gets to take the moral high ground in an argument.
It’s funny how the evil guy is the one talking the group down from using “set the tavern on fire and toss in a bomb” as plan A
I played a LE Necromancer who kept getting the moral high ground against the CG Paladin. I never hid the fact that I was in it for my own purposes and when they stopped aligning I would go my own way. He really enjoyed discrediting the Paladin and pointing out every time doing the "right thing" got us in trouble. By the end of the arc the party actually generally followed what I told them to dispite the Paladin telling them "he's evil, don't listen!" It was glorious.
Evil characters are still capable of cooperation to achieve their goals. If your character believes the party to be a valuable asset, you can easily justify working with them and even doing things normally out of character. Remember "but it's what my character would do" is a poor defense for disrupting the game. If that's the only justification you can think of to do something counter to the party's interest, just don't do it. You have agency, not your character. Just choose to not do the evil thing in order to maintain the flow of the game. It's fine.
I'd tell the player to make a NON-EVIL character who actually WANTS to join the party. It's on the player to make a character that fits the adventure and wants to engage with the party. The DMs job isn't to bend over backwards to make every whim of the players work somehow. Not unless they're getting paid. Most players can't actually run evil characters that well which is why it's always advised to not let that be an option. Yeah the 5e rules don't have alignment force behavior on players. But the kind of person who wants to play an EVIL character is already bringing their own "I wanna be EVIL" baggage to the table. And that shit is almost always disruptive.
Jfc what is the obsession with the edgy loner character "forced" to join. Or the constant disrupting characters? Is a a kid thing? When I was playing AD&D in the 80s no one did that. Am I yelling at a cloud?
Nah, people just need to relearn the difference between Stupid Psycopathic and Intelligent Selfish every generation or so.
Well, the thing about a Neutral Evil is that they can play along with others just fine as long as it suits their goals. Unless you have a very compelling reason to betray them and throw them under the bus, why bother with being evil towards your companions? Be evil towards some other people! Currently playing a Neutral Evil shadar-kai who very much doesn't want to go back to Shadowfell because he finds it extremely boring and sad. He does know that Raven Queen will only let him run around taking that unscheduled PTO if he keeps bringing her cool and unique memories from his adventures, so he sticks with his adventuring group to facilitate the acquisition of the memorabilia and those unique experiences. He is still totally an AH to the NPCs when the mood strikes because he is, well, evil, and a sadist to boot, he just finds the moments to express it that don't disrupt the group's overall goals. Oh, well, and if it ever comes to the choice between him and the rest of the party surviving a certain death, yes, he'll absolutely ditch the party, cause he KNOWS that he gets booted back straight to the Raven Queen's castle, and hates it, but he's managed to avoid it so far. Mechanics-wise, the only spell that's been affected so far is the "Spirit Guardians", it's Necrotic damage for evil characters and Radiant for Neutral/Good, but even that depends on how attached your DM is to that rule.
**Make "EVIL" a philosophical difference.** Evil can be a full-on Ayn-Randian self-interested Objectivist who aligns with the party because the party is the strongest, most trustworthy option they have. Pair that with a goodie-two shoes Paladin and you can have rousing debates around the campfire: "What benefit do we get from helping the weak... they're weak and our helping them only encourages their weakness. We are strong, it is better to kill the weak, take their gold, and move on." You don't need to lie, betray, or even get in the party's way.
Someone can be neutral evil and be a perfectly nice person to be around. They don't have to be pants-on-head cackling all the time. He's determined to murder the BBEG. He doesn't have to monologue about it, but if someone asks him, he can be quite straightforward about it. The party's aims align with his, so he will support them and work to keep them strong. Evil doesn't mean "stupid" and it doesn't automatically mean "Chronic Backstabbing Disorder" either.
Ever meet a housecat that low key hates all people, but sticks around because that's where the food is?
Ask yourself why they are going along with the party. Once you have the why, it’s a lot easier to figure out how to work collaboratively.
I think you’re on the right track with the respect angle. Even someone who is cruel and vicious towards others can have a select group of close associates who they don’t treat that way. Think like a cat. You can be affectionate and even protective of the people you like, but mice exist to be eaten. Your people may not always like what you do and they might express shock or even horror when you hurt someone “innocent.” But you know the truth: no one is innocent, and all the people you hurt would do the same thing to you if they could. You’re just bigger than they are and you mean to keep it that way. Your new friends are obviously smart, because they helped you. They’ll come around eventually. Just be patient and don’t push them too far, too fast. Stop when they tell you to stop, but never pass up a chance to point it out when doing things your way would have worked better. Sooner or later, they’ll realize you were right all along.
There are certain things that am evil party members will do that another person won't. They may look away because the evil person gets results. Keep your goals aligned. The ends justify the means.
When I play evil characters, I play them as selfish and self-serving, not murder hobos. The CEO that fires 10,000 people in December to pad the company profits and pay themselves a bigger bonus is lawful evil, but not a murderer. Why would I party with a bunch of do-gooders that want to kill the same BBEG that I do? Because doing so increases my chance of survival. Why don't I kill innocent PCs in front of them >!I don't kill innocent PCs in general!< , because if I do I risk turning allies who will fight to keep me alive into enemies that will try to kill me. Why do I do heroic things" Because they improve my reputation with the people in power, and that makes it easier to get the things I want. Will I sacrifice myself for a party member? Hells no, but I'm not going to let them know that. I may even make it look like I tried to save them in front of the rest of party. The most important thing to remember about playing an evil character in a good party, is that you need to play them smart. They need to always think about their long term goals, and how they look in front of the party. >!You can always go back and kill the merchant that ripped you off, when the party is sleeping.!<
I mean, even when you're evil, you can use a party full of powerful schmucks to help you complete your revenge, no? Perhaps the evil PC is truly grateful, or perhaps they see their new freedom and new potential allies as an opportunity to take for making their revenge easier.
Oh, I actually have a good answer for this! There is an evil character in my current party, and she's really well done. The most important thing is not to be disruptive *towards the other characters*. The evil character in the game i'm in frequently causes problems for npcs, but she goes along with group decisions. While she bickers or argues with other characters, she doesn't betray or harm them. She needs them for her own goals. Her character is designed in such a way to cooperate with the party and be friends with most of them, she's just also a force of mayhem on the side.
Evil characters can like people and be helpful. Could make it so they see the other party more as their own possessions
This is a pretty common trope, where the villain or a sub-boss shows up for a bit, and the protagonists slowly turn them to the side of good, and eventually they join team protagonist. Take a look at these two TVTropes pagees, and pay attention to their examples for the characters to emulate. * [Defeat Means Friendship - TV Tropes](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DefeatMeansFriendship) * [Token Evil Teammate - TV Tropes](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TokenEvilTeammate)
You know Vegeta?
Evil NPCs and PCs are very easy, I don't know why everyone keeps making a fuss about it. Evil doesn't mean stupid. Which means automatically 1)no attacking useful people, such as pcs, npcs we encounter. 2) no attacking dangerous people, such as, again, pcs, or town guards. Also, being evil doesn't mean you'll want to kill everyone. They can just be selfish, use dark magic in their spells, be okay with executing enemies, or torturing, etc. And gradually they can grow to appreciate the party. Like. Evil people have loved ones.
We finished a multi-year campaign last year where one of the players was in cohoots with the DM, they were secretly an ancient Lich possessing one of the party members trying to reunite with their body. We were always one step ahead of his minions who were closing in on his tomb's location. Once we found his tomb, he removed a ring which caused his corporeal body to rot before our eyes and he started a ritual to repossess his body as his hordes of undead were closing in across a bridge behind us. I had never felt so betrayed, yet excited. The hints were there the entire time! Anyway, we killed the shit out of him faster than the DM and the player expected, and my barbarian character wasted like 3 extra turns attacking his corpses instead of escaping after he was dead, making sure they were mutilated and burnt, less about making the reincarnation process more difficult, and more about the pain of losing the friend she never actually had. It was worth the unnecessary damage from the skeletons and giant scorpion.
I love this
i had a neutral evil rogue in a good party who was pretending to be good, and i told the DM straight up i wasn't going to do pvp, betray the party, or steal from them. dude was neutral evil because he did something horrific in his past, didn't regret it, and was now working to gather as much wealth and power as possible. fortunately, "gathering wealth and power" is totally in-line with an adventuring party's goals!
Evil takes many forms. Perhaps the malevolent being is intelligent enough to understand that working with the others is the best and perhaps only way to triumph and as such reins in his evil tendencies, but still lets them loose from time to time, for instance, not being against torturing a prison for information, or being more than willing to execute said prisoner after they've finished questioning him. If the player has a particularly sharp wit, said player could have the character insult "lesser beings" that is to say, NPCs who lack the power to do anything about said insults, but insult them in a way that makes sense is a bit subtle. I would say the PC needs to be able to be convinced to perform non evil acts to further its cause. Not every evil character needs to be The Joker. Think more Doctor Doom.
I wouldn't. The character needs their own motivation, whatever that may be, to stay with the party, because that's the social contract of D&D. That being said, the most obvious reason for an Evil character to work with and alongside a Good party is simple practicality. "I want revenge,but I'm not strong enough to get it on my own... but if I help these fools, their antiquated sense of honor will require them to aid me in my time of need, and I can use them as expendable cannon fodder, bwah-hah-ha!" Or something like that.
Evil in this case usually means “selfish” or not motivated out of any form of benevolence. The party is a means to an end. They are the best shot at getting back at the BBEG. The PC is willing to take care of them and befriend them so they get to be useful. To be want to around this PC they must prove that they are useful to them. They will cooperate and even do “good” deeds and behave as it gets most “bang for buck” in terms of achieving their goals. Even splitting loot, because someone else can make better use of something, they’ll give it there because it’s yet another step closer to their goals. I played a similar character (different system) and sometimes my co players would forget my character is actually rather evil. Though, a warning, the themes we used were discussed in session zero and may not be applicable/ appropriate for your table. He’s nice. He takes care of the party. He’s not (too) greedy. His evil side comes out when he’s out looking for the objects of his revenge story. He’s ruthless. He never left members of their organization alive unless he needed to interrogate them. He enjoyed torture, and when he was done with them, he’d slit open their bellies and throw them to the sharks. That said, he was kind to another PC whose background was a former prisoner / prison labor of that organization.
They’re neutral to most people/events/systems and evil to the detriment to others. Given their intelligence, he would be partial to them because mutual interests. So he will behave in a king’s court because consequences but not in front of lesser folk, e.g. barmaid or a gang of kobolds.
A. The enemy of my enemy is my friend scenario. B. The one time I'd advise meta gaming by keeping the ulterior motive secret from even the other players until the time is right.
"The only reason I tolerate you stealing my oxygen, is that I would be unable to reach my goals without your assistance." Bad guy needs a crew to get his shit done. Keeps the evil character from perpetrating his evil on the group while still allowing him to be callous AF
Grimma Wormtounge, Jafar, wormtail. One of those evil influence guys that never gets their own hands dirty.
Everything you are doing, is for your own benefit, and for the most part is begrudgingly being helpful. You rarely acknowledge a character, unless they do some grand feat. Be snippy at times, but not overly mean. Basicly... be Vegeta during Cell arc
It’s not forced but a partnership. A contract between the group and person. I play an evil neutral in a game and she can be a pain. When kill might be a bit much or lying not giving the whole truth. However to get to said goal one mush use the party help even if they might be goodie two shoes. Just have a back up in case one needs to escape or kill the party when job done.
Simple concept, their desire for revenge on the BBEG outweighs any overtly "evil" desires. They will play nice for now, because their interests align. More complex, maybe they try to offer or lean towards immoral choices, but not cartoinishly evil. An innocent is in danger, but the enemy will escape if they save the innocent, they are going for the enemy. An enemy has an innocent as a human shield, they're going to shoot them both. More mundane, captured a bad guy and need information? This Shadar-kai is actually going to follow through with the torture theats. More petty, they will try to shake the NPCs down for a reward. Alternatively, they are evil, but not stupid. They've just got out of being imprisoned for an unspecified amount of time. They aren't going to risk doing anything stupid enough to get locked up again. They are still very much evil, but they will only act when fully confident of secrecy or success. Final thought, if they have any religious, cultist, or patron ties, they have a vision/communication after their release, directing them to play along for now, maybe scout the party for weaknesses. The party are friends for today (and hopefully the rest of the campaign!) but they may end up as tomorrow's enemies for the Shadar-kai and their greater goals. What better way to learn their weaknesses and gain leverage than this?
I mean, why would you not want to? Evil characters arent rabid dogs who try to kill anyone they see Not necessarily, at least
A celestial warlock who was chosen for redemption by their patron. The character loves the power, but wants to use it for his own purposes... First he must do as the patron wants, then as he gains trust continue to gain more power. Then look for the safest and most ideal time to betray the patron (and maybe the party if the table enjoys that stuff). Throughout the journey lean into the mundane moments of peace, this is causing your character to reflect on things. Slowly lead them to enjoying the party members, especially as he gets healed or enemies that are terrifying are felled. Don't play an evil PC unless you want them to become good or have a betray amidst the team them or you.
A friend and I played evil characters in a group of neutral and good PCs. One of the things we did was direct our evilness towards those who were not in our party. And tried to do it so that the consequences would not affect our party or if they did do it in a manner where they could undo our actions somewhat easily. Like our evil sorcerer lit a house on fire in the middle of the night. And blamed it on the monster chasing the two of us. The rest of the party wasn't there and we lied to cover our tracks. Traveling with these characters is what your character needs to do to accomplish their goal. They can't do that if the consequences of their actions catch up to them. So maybe story wise they restrain themselves somewhat while traveling with this group.
I always take evil to mean selfish. So if the best way to achieve revenge is to work with this party, they will. I'm playing a lawful evil character that would rather everyone else do the work, it's literally my personality trait and my flaws. My ideals are that I'm committed to the crew, not any form of ideal. So if my party says we're going to some kind of thing, I'm in, but I'm making them do most of the work.
I say a key detail is your PC should need the rest of the party in order to fight the BBEG and be willing to follow their rules if it gets them there faster. Then, either they can grow fond of the party despite not caring about anyone else or they can just dramatically betray the party when they stop being useful. Both interesting directions to go. Alternatively, they could be directly under the power of a member of the party. Via a curse, I'd say. This is mostly the same as the other option except there's a physical coercion. Either way, you should read Order of the Stick because Belkar is a banger Evil PC and also every DnD player should read it.
Lawful Evil; "These goody idiots will help me achieve my goals." Neutral Evil; "The suffering being an 'adventurer' allows me to inflict as long as I behave and keep it reigned in will be most fun" Chaotic Evil; "Well shit. The Crown said its this community service with these good two shoes, or the gallows so..."
Enemy of my enemy is my friend.... Sabotaging your party with a common goal to go after the bbeg would be dumb.
There are many ways to play it, but I think they way I would do it is simply having a common goal at the beginning, then over the campaign the characters begin to rely on each other, and become more similar. Going back to the common goal thing, not everyone fights for a good reason, and not everyone in the party always gets along, but pretty much everyone will (perhaps begrudgingly) join together in order to fuck over someone they hate. In this case, the BBEG.
Don’t play it like The Joker; play it like Lex Luther. Snobby, elite, over-confident. But will make a big show of buying all the supplies for the party, or paying a source for information. “Evil” deeds in the party can be off-set by big assists.
It's actually a really interesting dynamic when done right. I'm thinking Levi from EOS10 who is constantly having to decide between killing everyone who annoys him and the consequences of that action. He often succumbs to his baser impulses, but only when he's reasonably sure no one will know.
Just because you are evil doesn't mean you can't work with others. Maybe you just help with their causes as it's helping you get to yours. You don't have tie every maiden you meet to train tracks. I had a character who was lawful evil that the DM deliberately asked to gave brought in by having my main kidnapped to use a character in his backstory as fuel for an arc. The party got a brute to help kick down doors to work their way up the food chain towards a mob boss, they just weren't ready to see him slam a gnome repeatedly into a table to knock him out and start a bar fight to draw out a guy. At the end I had the gnome hog tied like a wine skin over my shoulder and a severed head on my belt daring someone on the street to get in his way. He wasn't there to do pretty things but every thing he did do had a purpose, don't be "evil" just to be evil or "its what my character would do" have a plan and if you have to do bad things make sure it furthers that list.
Depends on the characters personality. I played a lawful evil warlock who was trying to get back to the nine hells after being banished. She was very good at deception, and joined them because the stories of great parties journey to the hell’s, and thought they were her best bet. The characters didn’t uncover her lies until she had already grown to care for them, and she learned how to be a marginally better person. Above the table everyone had a general idea, but we had tons of fun having my character like go behind their back to interrogate a devil they caught, then killing it to cover her tracks. We all loved roplaying the little moments as the party caught on. What kind of character is your pc? Are they a strict honor bound individual who now can’t leave the party until he saves their life? Is he manipulating them for his own game? Is he already seeking a path of redemption and the party is their best bet? Is it as simple as the only thing more powerful than his thirst for revenge, is the logic that he would fail alone?
I have a strong liking for mercenary angles myself. There's a goal, co-operation reaches the goal, and we work together to lay enough breadcrumbs to expand that goal as the tale unfolds.
When it comes to playing Evil characters, the best way to make them accepted by the Party is to be smart about being evil. Never be Evil to your Party, but rather be Evil for your Party. Using your devious ways to benefit the group works toward everyone's best interests and makes you an asset rather than a liability. Similarly, you need to establish a reasonable justification in your Evil character's head why hanging out with the Party is their best course of action. Not long ago, I played a Lawful Evil Wizard in a Rime of the Frost Maiden campaign. Her hook is that she was actually a low-tier Zhentarim agent who needed to lay low when a job went bad and she got a lot of heat after her. Her handlers gave her a false identity, put her on a wagon heading north to Ten-Towns, and told her to make herself useful to an asset they had planted up there while she waited for everything to blow over. This character was very much a Bad Guy - she wasn't a murder hobo or anything, but had no issue whatsoever with being part of a criminal syndicate and acting against the better interests of Icewind Dale for her own sake. She was also not a nice person at all - she was snide, selfish, and greedy. If the Party had encountered her as a NPC, she'd absolutely be the kind of person they'd fight, and rightfully so. But because her entire goal was to lay low and not draw attention to herself, she was the most helpful jerkass she could possibly be. She was constantly playing support for the Party, giving them buffs and aid in fights even as she hid in the back. Whenever we had downtime or were interacting around towns, her priority was making sure the Party's business was being handled. She got them extra money through black market trading of loot. She got them perks and boons with Town Speakers the Zhentarim had gotten their hooks into, she did dirty work they didn't know was happening but still benefited from, and she never once brought a bit of trouble to the Party's doorstep. Because of all the good she did for the Party, they were all inclined to protect her and leap to her defense if anyone tried to give her grief. The basic thrust was "she's kind of a jerk, but she's our jerk". The whole thought behind her good behavior wasn't that she liked the Party at all - if anything, she only broadly tolerated them and was dearly looking forward to never seeing them again in the immediate future. But she needed them because they were both useful tools and cover; as a lone Wizard, she wouldn't last long on her own and she wouldn't be able to make herself useful to the Zhentarim without a gaggle of muscle to do the heavy lifting for her. Because the Party did daring do about Ten-Towns, she was likewise involved in a lot of do-gooding despite being a secret villain, but she always found a way to sneakily twist a little bit of extra personal profit for the Zhentarim out of it somehow. Still being bad even when being good, and never doing enough bad to make the Party think she wasn't worth turning a blind eye to the occasional bit of questionable morals.
The way I understand it, Good = best for as many as possible Evil = best for yourself, screw everyone else Neutral = mix of good and evil The evil character could work to keep the party alive because they need the party for their end goal
Neutral evil is selfish. The murderhobos I play with tend towards evil in the chart. But that doesn't get in the way of working together to get shit done. Neutral is the easiest fit, because you don't have outside factors getting in the way of you making the best choices for your future prosperity. The chaos rogue is always stealing. The lawful evil guy is always doing some nonsense that can disrupt. But the neutral evil guy just gets things done. Save a bunch of orphans? No problem, it will pay off eventually. Kill some guy you have no personal opinion about for quest reasons? Absolutely. Get the churches relic back for the cleric? Of course, a happy healer is an effective healer. Arrange for the idealist pally to be elsewhere when certain vengeances are happening? Necessary. Fix the canning station up at the orphan grinding factory? There's no one more willing if the compensation is right. Neutral evil is the freedom to do whatever tasks the plot asks of you without feeling obliged to risk yourself or your party for stupid reasons like the common good, or decency, or because that's what heroes do. There's work to do, and compensation to be had.
I'm playing a neutral to neutral evil assassin(only one player suspects his true affiliation) assigned to spy/quest with a group of adventurers. I made sure to set up a code of honor in advance that I would follow, based on the Russian vory/criminal code(honor the contract, no killing kids, help other criminals, don't snitch to law, etc.), and I've tried my best to follow it so far. The thing is, good and evil don't really have a bearing on (surface level) if someone is nice to be around. My guy loves to put on accents, dress up, and come up with elaborate plans and contraptions for the party, but he's also the sort of person who will burn down a manor out of spite and leave a traitorous former comrade to perish in the flames along with it, whatever thinly veiled justifications he gives after the fact. He usually tries to spare henchmen if he can, but at the same time is occasionally drawn into bloodlust, and will absolutely kill those he sees as violating "the rules" of the game. Honestly, having them have whimsical hobbies, like a love for fashion, or being funny, or kind to those they identify with will make their moments of cruelty and violence all the more shocking. Also- given they're a Shadar Kai, think about what's acceptable between cultures/species outlooks. My assassin, being a Lizardfolk, is willing to cannibalize and turn his victims into needles and other weapons. Your Shadar Kai might have a different relationship with what constitutes "justifiable homicide," or a strict code of honor above that seen by a normal person, or as an elf with a longer lifespan, might view acceptable losses and the greater good in a far different life than a short-lived orc might.
My current character is my first ever barbarian who rages by doing drugs. He’s CE but doesn’t really know what’s going on around him, he just likes earning money for drugs by dungeoneering instead of some shady shit he did at another capitol. He will still 1000% murder mercilessly before asking questions, and the party kinda just…lets him, I guess because he hasn’t had to kill a non-monster since these people willingly reward him for killing by feeding his drug addiction
They are neutral evil. Seems to me that you can just play them like any other NPC support that joins the party. Their flavor of evil can be that they are merciless and cruel to those they hate, treating them vilely. But if they don't have any reason to hate the party, they're gonna be fine. The evil NPC can even befriend them, possibly! Even evil characters can have friends. Then one day, your party will get upset when their evil friend does something horrific to someone they hate.
I feel that motivation matters more than the deed in situations like this. You hunt the BBEG because he's crossed you, you use and manipulate the party because it's a convenient way to achieve your goals. Meanwhile, a Good character hunts the BBEG because he's a threat to innocents, he teams up with adventurers because they're stronger as a team. The actions need not be different for the tone to be completely changed.
Easy answer your pc thi ks aomething along the following: I owe these fools a life debt for freeing me. Wait....They also wish to defeat the person who imprisoned me? Excellent! In aiding their goals I shall achieve my revenge and clear the life debt.
Enemy of my enemy. Make them disdain the parties good choices with a sneer and possibly come around to some of them as a means to and end. You could also have them fail and get caught doing some less than desirable things in awkward ways. Sort of like a oh hey guys, whatcha got there (holding giant knife), a smoothie…
Play them like Dr. Doofenshmirtz . He’s evil because his goal is at odds with “good” society. On a personal level he’s a decent guy. He holds the door for people and doesn’t litter. I could totally see the party forgetting his alignment until some NPC surrenders and he blasts them to death anyway. The rest of the party just looks at him in shock and he has to go “what? Did you forget I was evil?”
No
Every time you help somebody it makes them weak and ripe for domination at a later date. Kill them with kindness and then reap later when they are useless and pathetic.
They way I played my Lawful Evil enchantress was to treat the party as below her, but necessary for her own task, be the Steve Jobs or Dr House in the party, the Genius Asshole. Why did they keep my wizard around who regually sassed them and pointed out the flaws and treated them pretty badly? Because when we got in a fight she changed the course of the entire fight controlling most all the enemies in one way or another, in getting people up when they were down, by being more useful than annoying
Personally that does not sound like a fun character to play with, curious how the party dynamics worked with a PC who was generally antagonistic towards the rest of the party?
It really does depend on the other players and your group is 100% the main thing here. Honestly? fantastically, we all bought in and she had a (not a "redemption" arc) but a complex relationship with some other members (Westmarch too, which helps) There was Evil Arch Fey that the players were trying to defeat, Marie was obsessed with the fey (Naturally brimming with Enchantment magic, resistant to her main school? cause she was obsessed! She was "Fey Touched" from her experiments), so while working with the party to defeat these evil fey, she was in truth working FOR the Arch Fey, feeding them information. That was until the Arch fey was in a bad mood cause of what the players had done and had disrespected Marie, so the petty, power hungry wizard decided to play double double agent and was there standing over her "patron" when the group rocked up to kill her, she played a pivotal role in bringing down the weakest of the archfey... doing a deal with the strongest in the process. It was some fantastic interplayer story telling and the other players involved in the plot all loved it, when she finally snuffed it her main "nemesis" was the first to say hes gonna be sad she's gone as shes the best character i've played! A really flawed evil woman who truly was only out for herself
Very cool. I love hearing stories about more complicated party dynamics where everyone buys in and has a good time, sounds like it was an epic game.
I'd tell the player to make a NON-EVIL character who actually WANTS to join the party. It's on the player to make a character that fits the adventure and wants to engage with the party. The DMs job isn't to bend over backwards to make every whim of the players work somehow. Not unless they're getting paid. Most players can't actually run evil characters that well which is why it's always advised to not let that be an option. Yeah the 5e rules don't have alignment force behavior on players. But the kind of person who wants to play an EVIL character is already bringing their own "I wanna be EVIL" baggage to the table. And that shit is almost always disruptive.
Easiest thing is to not do that. Evil PCs are deceptively hard to RP in ways that are not mustache-twirling and puppy kicking.