Post/Author/DateTime	Post
ahiman 03-13-06, 07:16 PM	So I am going to be playing in a party soon and every one else is going to be good of some sort, NG cleric, LG fighter, CG bard and then there is me. What I am thinking is a NE rogue. If you have seen serenity just think of the bad guy. He is evil, even he say that, but he wants a better world for every one and he does the things that will make that world even though by doing them he makes it so he can't live in that world. Like that character. I was jut wondering how much you think this will be an issue with the other characters. It is an odd situation but one that could be fun. Thanks
Robert_Fox_Kitsune 03-13-06, 07:26 PM	I loved serenity, and the villain was my favorite character So, a self sacrificing Rouge, whom does evil for a better world for the overall population, but damns himself in doing so? This will be a VERY difficult character to play. Are you sure it shouldn;t be chaotic evil? Either way, the best way to get around the party problem would be to backstab them, basicly. If they do something and you want it done differently, if it is possibble than go behind their back and undermine them afterwards, or sabotage them before. You can't make yourself known until you have something with which to sway the party descision. Something that will make them scared to cross you, or at least guarentee you some defence
Doopliss 03-13-06, 07:38 PM	Does your party mind this sort of thing? They could be rightfully ticked off if you, at any point, undermine their efforts. If you think it will become necessary it might not be a good idea, but if you manage to avoid that I don't see a problem.
Ameture Expert 03-13-06, 08:24 PM	Avoid Paladins. Other than that, don't back stab any one right away: Charactors come and go but your friends are probable not going to enjoy having their's slaughtered by your guy. And reserve truely evil things for when they are not around.
Callista 03-13-06, 09:46 PM	So I am going to be playing in a party soon and every one else is going to be good of some sort, NG cleric, LG fighter, CG bard and then there is me. What I am thinking is a NE rogue. If you have seen serenity just think of the bad guy. He is evil, even he say that, but he wants a better world for every one and he does the things that will make that world even though by doing them he makes it so he can't live in that world. Like that character. I was jut wondering how much you think this will be an issue with the other characters. It is an odd situation but one that could be fun.Actually, this guy sounds strongly *Lawful* Evil to me. I don't mean "lawful" as in "law-abiding", but "lawful" as in disciplined, orderly--essentially, he thinks of the larger group, or the "greater good", before himself: He's dedicated to one goal, and he'll do anything--even evil--to attain that goal. That's Lawful, especially if he is "driven" or "disciplined" in the way he goes about it. Basically, this character would be the sort to strive for a selfless goal--but he would be very ruthless in reaching that goal. (You need to give him such a goal from the get-go; talk to the DM and ask what the campaign's goal might be; then find something that'll work with it.) Torture, murder, whatever... it's all acceptable to this guy, but only if it's for that "greater good" he's striving for. He probably doesn't allow himself to do evil if it isn't necessary; generally, he'll go for the most utilitarian method of doing what he needs to do. Say: If there's a poor farmer who has information your rogue needs, he could just as well ask politely, charm the guy, or torture him until he talks--it all depends on which one is most likely to work and least likely to hinder him in his quest (either by getting him into trouble with the law, or by not being ruthless enough to get him what he needs quickly enough). Relations with your party members: They are going for the same goal you're going for, or at least your paths coincide for now; so they're useful to you. You protect them; they protect you; and since there's strength in numbers, you're better off with them than without them. Sure, they might be weak and kind-hearted; but you can hide any nasty work you have to do from them well enough, right? Better not to disturb the unity that's working so nicely for you, at least until your goal is accomplished. And, at any rate, not even Evil characters are immune to friendship and love; you may find you like these soft-hearted fools more than you thought you would. Oh, as for character advancement... Go for Assassin... it totally fits the flavor of your "for the greater good" Evil guy.
Aardobard 03-13-06, 10:07 PM	I'm not sure evil is the right code for this guy. He sounds LN, certainly with evil tendencies. But if his goal is to make the world better for the greatest number, and his methods are very... *fluid*, then maybe we'll have to see how often he's willing to go the bad way to get things done before we can label him evil. I haven't seen Serenity, so I may be missing something important.
Steel91101 03-13-06, 10:30 PM	What I am thinking is a NE rogue. If you have seen serenity just think of the bad guy. He is evil, even he say that, but he wants a better world for every one and he does the things that will make that world even though by doing them he makes it so he can't live in that world. You wanted opinions, yes? My observation is that this concept doesn't work at all. An evil character is not interested in creating a better world for everyone -- he is interested in creating a better world for himself (or for his evil deity, if he has one). Evil characters are not altruistic, they are all about the self. Altruism, as in "wanting a better world for everyone," is a Good trait, and probably also Lawful. If you really want to play your concept, you are going to have to change to NG, CG or LG. (feels more like Lawful/Good to me). My two copper coins.
Reighnhell 03-13-06, 10:52 PM	The Operative in Serenity struck me a very good example of Lawful Evil. He definately wouldn't qualify as Lawful good, simply because a Lawful Good charcter always strives to take the moral and ethical high ground. A Lawful Good character doesn't throw innocent people to the wolves to accomplish their goals, nor do they strike at an opponent through friends and family. But I tend to run alignment based on both motive and deed. To keep your alignment one must stay true in both thought and deed. Doing something awful for a good end does not excuse the awful deed. A Lawful Good character would not strangle a infant to death in it's crib, even if they knew the child would become a mass murderer. A Lawful Evil character would in a heartbeat. Evil characters in a good party tend to occupy the role of "necessary evil". They are capable and willing of doing things that other party members would find distasteful or wicked, but ultimately help the party. The concept for your character works as long as you remember that you do evil things because every now and again an evil deed must be done.
Frodo Lives 03-13-06, 11:00 PM	I think the biggest question is how will the other players react? If they discover that your rogue is evil they have every right to throw him out of the group, instant NPC! You certainly don't have to play a goody two shoes charcter to adventure with NG and LG characters, but you can't be obvious evil either. I'd also go out of my way not to screw over the other members of the party. They may not agree with your methods, but if it doesn't directly effect them they may look the other way, except paladins then you're toast.
ahiman 03-14-06, 12:19 AM	just to clear some things up. If you read the ECS king kius is LE. He kills any one who will mess with his people. So I am using that as a kind of base. as for the rest of the people, the cleric is the only one who knows his stuff. The cleric tells him his orders for the Government and gives him confession. No he won't be messing with the party and no he won't be telling them unless he needs to. But the real big stuff in the party is going ot be fighter and ard. The law vs. chaos is much bigger then good and evil so that is the big one.
9mm of Mercy 03-14-06, 01:04 AM	Seems to me to be far more of a Lawful Neutral sort of fellow than an Evil one. When someone is doing something to make the world a better place or for the greater good of all people they really aren't evil at all. The Operative from Serenity also struck me as Lawful Neutral as well. He had a job to do and he did it, he took no pleasure in his actions (I'm pretty sure he said that almost to a T) and did not understand the implications of keeping the secret. When he found out about the Reavers he let the gang go free. What makes your character evil? Must have to be something pretty big to outweigh risking his life for the good of people he's never met and probably wouldn't even like.
Callae 03-14-06, 01:29 AM	You wanted opinions, yes? My observation is that this concept doesn't work at all. An evil character is not interested in creating a better world for everyone -- he is interested in creating a better world for himself (or for his evil deity, if he has one). Evil characters are not altruistic, they are all about the self. Altruism, as in "wanting a better world for everyone," is a Good trait, and probably also Lawful. If you really want to play your concept, you are going to have to change to NG, CG or LG. (feels more like Lawful/Good to me). My two copper coins. Not to be particularly contradictory, but Evil doesn't necessarily mean, "thinks only of oneself," but rather, "primarily thinks of oneself." In addition, it can mean other things without having selfishness, although it starts entering debatable area in an already debatable subject. The archetype of the anti-hero refers to the nasty, unremorseful, and often the particularly vengeful 'heroes' who, though not, "destroy/take over the world," evil, are more than willing to use dastardly methods to acheive a better world for both themselves and others, particularly those they care about. The will freely cheat, steal, lie, and kill. If the anti-hero has to kill thirty 'innocent' people to save the world, he will. If someone tries to stop him, and the anti-hero feels he has a decent opportunity to get past whomever it is that is stopping him, he'll take that chance. It ends up being less of the, "Evil is selfishness," area of the Evil alignment spectrum, and more of the, "ready and more than willing to do Evil things," sort of Evil. Once again, it's very debatable territory in an already debatable subject, and there are those who would say that committing evil acts on a regular basis for the cause of good is still good, and likewise there are those who do not believe that anti-heros can even exist. It's all a matter of opinion, in the end. I suggest discussing it with both the party, and with the DM. It's something that will effect everyone in one way or another, and it will be better if everyone is on the same page in regards to the subject. Just my two bits. ~C
Neverwrong 03-14-06, 08:24 AM	I had a similar problem, only running in the opposite direction. Take The "Touch of benelovence" Feat. Can't remember where it was. Then it should fit quite nicely.
AshSimmo 03-14-06, 09:40 AM	Hey, Im kinda playing that now. We have a party of goody two shoes' 1 Paladin, 1 Cleric, 1 Ranger, 1 Druid, 1 Barbarian, 1 Fighter, 1 Wild Mage all of good alignment of some kind. Then me, a Neutral Evil assassin. The game is very religion based with the paladin and cleric leading the way to ridding the world of evil, and the Druid is out to avenge the death of a silver dragon. My assassin is there to do the dirty work. The cleric knows my true alignment and keeps me around (often covering my dirty deeds) in exchange for me killing the people he opposes to create a good society. The paladin keeps trying to detect evil and coming up with nothing because his god blessed me with undetectable alignment that I can drop at will. This makes for great amusement as i "blink" on his radar! It has been a great one to play, and is really fun to go about my own agenda while I am still not outwardly backstabbing the other members attempts to do thier own thing,
celtredleg 03-14-06, 09:47 AM	Talk to your DM first. Many will ban this outright. If he is OK, go to the other players. Again, many will simply not play with you. Some may. A lot depends on who you play with. If these are friends in RL they will be easy to convince. If it is just people you only know through gaming, it is a harder sell. Most people play to have fun. Few people consider it fun to get backstabbed by thier own guy. To many times this sort of game looks very cool to the evil person, but sucks for everyone else. It is a matter of how much they trust you.
Sereno 03-14-06, 10:25 AM	"The Operative" from Serenity was almost a textbook example of an LE character ... doing whatever is necessary for the good of the Alliance, even when he knew the individual acts were evil. He had honor, even to the point of giving the scientist who allowed River to be rescued by her brother a "clean death". But, he still shot Mal in the back to prevent him from reaching the transmitter. A CE character doesn't care about anything but themselves. An NE character cares most about the furtherance of Evil. I've always characterized them as follows: LE - honorable evil CE - selfish evil NE - evil evil :) But, definately ask your fellow players (including the DM) about how they feel to have this sort of person with them. I'd certainly rather adventure with this sort of character than the typcial "stupid-evil" I read about on these boards. It might even be "comforting" to know that someone in the party could do things that need to be done, but that I'd rather not know about. It's like Jack Bauer in Fox TV's "24" -- he shot an innocent woman in the leg to get her husband to talk aobut where the terrorists were planning to take the Sentox nerve gas. He's LE, too. He's sacrificed everything, including his family, for the United States. More important, what would be your character's "Alliance" ... the thing that he would sacrifice anything, including the innocent and his own soul, for?
The Phantom Flan Flinger 03-14-06, 10:26 AM	Talk to your DM first. Many will ban this outright. If he is OK, go to the other players. Again, many will simply not play with you. Too many times this sort of game looks very cool to the evil person, but sucks for everyone else. Yeah, that. This dedicated, means-to-an-end concept of yours sounds like a loner. I don't believe he could function within a Good-aligned group (or possibly any group) for any length of time. His goals don't sound like they're going to match those of the party. Can you imagine the guy from Serenity going around doing his job with a group of nice, friendly, normal people in tow who don't even share his aims, never mind agree with his methods?
SiouLubb 03-14-06, 12:46 PM	My vote for the Operative is Lawful Evil. If you want to see a great example of how an evil character can fit within a regular PC group, read the entire archive of the webcomic "The Order of the Stick" and pay attention to how Belkar the halfling ranger acts. He's evil, but still manages to fit it with the group. Why exactly do you want to play an evil character though? What experiences in role-playing are you going to get out of it that you would not by playing a neutral or good character? I've seen many players who want to play evil simply so they can do whatever the hell they want, irregardless of the rest of the group, playing and acting only for whatever they want as a player. The game goes down the tubes for the DM and the other PCs, while the evil player sits there and says "hey, don't blame me, I'm just playing my alignment. My PC is evil." I'm not saying that this is your motive, but you should take a good look at why you want to play evil. I also suggest thinking about how you want your character to fit within the group. That's your character fitting into the group, not how the group will have to change to fit your character. A character like the Operative could work in a DnD group. You could model the character explicitly on him. Say your Rogue is the equivalent of a secret policeman, dedicated to serving the King/Lord, religion, whatever (works really well if one of your party members is nobility, provides a check on your character screwing the group if you have to follow the other PC's orders to an extent). Your personal goal might be serving the best interests of the state, no matter what they may be, by any means necessary. Again though, if you find yourself looking forward to how your character's goals will clash with the group, do your group a favour and don't play an evil character.
ToxicWiz 03-14-06, 01:50 PM	welcome to the evil side. :devil: your character concept sounds firm to me, but onto the subject of other players. if the DM approves, great, but renember not to make his job too hard. my advice: play, you'll find a way to work it out. if nothing else, they are meatshields for you. my opinion. that's all.
OravennasBrother 03-14-06, 03:27 PM	If I was DM'ing and someone approached with that character concept, I would probably disallow it. It is too easy for such a character to get out of hand and decide "In Character" to kill one of the other PC's because they "Crossed the Line" (whatever the line may be). YEs I have been repeatedly accused (by those who don't play in my games) of being a Railroading son of a gun who demands all the PC's fit into a "Singel Vision" (in other words a coherent team). Strangely, none of my players ever made that accusation - they all realize that certain characters are fine for solitaire play, but disasters for a group. The Agent from Serenity is an example of such a character.
Rosisha 03-14-06, 03:47 PM	I played a Neutral Evil gnome wizard as a character, and though I hadn't based him off serenity, he was one cold-hearted S.O.B. On the other hand, he wasn't a mass murdering lunatic. His evilness was more centered around crime (i eventually took Arcane Trickster), blackmail (but only people he didn't like! -- best line ever), and the occasional assassination. He never once hurt the other players, in fact, he saw it as his sad but inevitable duty to protect the naive idiots as they "matured" and grew to realize that the world was out to get them, just as he had. He spent his time trying to convert them because he was "fond" of them. It was a lot of fun, and I quoted Machiavelli a lot. I even brought some fun political philosophy books to my gaming table for a while. And to be honest, we needed him. There were to many times when strict adherence to the alingment table would have killed us. So my guy would sneak off, the party would try and stop him, but would be far to late to do anything but clean up after him. Rosisha
Callista 03-14-06, 04:00 PM	"The Operative" from Serenity was almost a textbook example of an LE character ... doing whatever is necessary for the good of the Alliance, even when he knew the individual acts were evil. He had honor, even to the point of giving the scientist who allowed River to be rescued by her brother a "clean death". But, he still shot Mal in the back to prevent him from reaching the transmitter. A CE character doesn't care about anything but themselves. An NE character cares most about the furtherance of Evil. I've always characterized them as follows: LE - honorable evil CE - selfish evil NE - evil evil :) But, definately ask your fellow players (including the DM) about how they feel to have this sort of person with them. I'd certainly rather adventure with this sort of character than the typcial "stupid-evil" I read about on these boards. It might even be "comforting" to know that someone in the party could do things that need to be done, but that I'd rather not know about. It's like Jack Bauer in Fox TV's "24" -- he shot an innocent woman in the leg to get her husband to talk aobut where the terrorists were planning to take the Sentox nerve gas. He's LE, too. He's sacrificed everything, including his family, for the United States. More important, what would be your character's "Alliance" ... the thing that he would sacrifice anything, including the innocent and his own soul, for?I couldn't add anything more to this, so I'll just quote it and say I agree. Evil does not have to be selfish. It just has to be evil.
Twisted Puppy 03-14-06, 04:20 PM	I'm not familiar with "the Operative" from Serenity. If you're familiar with David Weber's "Honorverse", it sounds like you want a character very similar to Victor Cachat, a Havenite intelligence officer. He is so dedicated to the ideals the Republic of Haven stands for that he will do anything necessary to ensure the safety of those ideals. Torture, murder, lie, steal, sacrifice friends, give information to enemies, anything. He will never do those things for his own power or profit, nor does he enjoy doing them. But he will do them anyway because of his fierce dedication. If that's what you're looking for, you should have no problem fitting in with a group of good characters. Arguments can be made for LE or LN. It would help if whatever your character is dedicated to is something the other characters can support. While you may be occassionally at loggerheads because of your methods, at least they will understand your goals.
Warboss Morgrum 03-14-06, 04:40 PM	As a DM, I take a very "survival of the fittest" view of the party. I don't dictate anyone's alignment. So my parties are usually a smattering of Good, Neutral, and Evil characters. They either kill each other off, or find a way to get along. IMHO, The Operative is the perfect example of LE. As SiouLubb said, he can fit into most parties with a little work. His "Ideal" needs to encompass something that most of the other PCs respect (He will uplift all the oppressed peasants in the land, by killing all the nobles and giving out their money/goods to the peasants, or something). I'd be leery of putting too much of a religious slant on it, as the other PCs probably hate whatever Evil god he would worship.
Dag 03-14-06, 05:05 PM	Get yourself an imagination and create your own character concept instead of sniping one from a show or movie. And secondly, don't come into a game with a character who is going to cause trouble and disrupt the existing party. If I were a player I would ask the idiot DM who OKed your evil alignment what sort of moron he was to toss such BS at his players, stirring up the pot and being an accomplice in your trouble-making and disruptions.
Iron Kobold 03-14-06, 05:48 PM	My Advice: Bad… Bad…. Bad… IDEA! If I was in your group and I found out that you were playing a NE character AND A rogue- I’d be miffed. Please don’t anyone quote any ‘Dragon Lance’ to me, I don’t care. :weep: But playing an evil character with Good party (Especially LG) is a terrible idea. Some character will die by the hands of another before the campaign is over. :raincloud: Don’t care how cool you concept is, this is a bad idea.
Doopliss 03-14-06, 11:32 PM	If I were a player I would ask the idiot DM who OKed your evil alignment what sort of moron he was to toss such BS at his players, stirring up the pot and being an accomplice in your trouble-making and disruptions. That's why he's posting here, to prevent any in-party conflict. Unless his party is the 'smite everything' type, I fail to see why this would have to cause trouble. (Assuming nobody in the party decides to become a Paladin half-way through, in which case it's impossible rules-wise) People work under different definitions of Evil. An Evil act in one campaign could be Neutral or even Good in another. Don't judge.
rockondon 03-15-06, 03:04 AM	I've never watched Serenity but I've read some dragonlance novels and Raistlin was a really cool character. I like to read about him because I, like most people, like to read about conflict. And naturally, an evil person will clash with good people. Although inner party conflict is great to read about, that doesn't make it good for roleplaying. The better people play their alignments, the more they should be irritated by one another. I wouldn't have allowed it in my campaign. The day may come when that paladin does discover that he's evil. What happens then? One online 3.5 reference guide describes NE as thus: Neutral Evil, “Malefactor”: A neutral evil villain does whatever she can get away with. She is out for herself, pure and simple. She sheds no tears for those she kills, whether for profit, sport, or convenience. She has no love of order and holds no illusion that following laws, traditions, or codes would make her any better or more noble. On the other hand, she doesn’t have the restless nature or love of conflict that a chaotic evil villain has. Despite this, I rather like the definition that others go by, where he will do evil acts for the greater good. That's kinda cool.
OravennasBrother 03-15-06, 12:44 PM	I've never watched Serenity but I've read some dragonlance novels and Raistlin was a really cool character. The problem is that some literary conventions work poorly in game play. The Character "Silk" from the Belgariad was ostensibly evil (a common quote "That's evil Silk" got a reply like "Yes, I am.") yet he never thought of betraying the group. As soon as the Evil PC decides he can get along better by killing the other PC's and taking their stuff, then you run into the game wall. Either the DM steps in and arbitrarily stops the evil PC (an action someimes called Railroading), or the campaign is ruined because of one player insisting he needs an "Evil" character. Finally th character described might be better viewed as LN - he works to make a "Perfect" society, using methods he abhors, because someone has to do it. Now LN will work well with most PC groups; even paladins can tolerate them.
Voran 03-15-06, 04:42 PM	I'm going to say that you should have the right to play something that makes you happy. But the moment your play happiness makes things crappy for the other players in the group, they have the right to beat you up (player, not character) and kick you outta the group :) That goes regardless of alignment. Same goes for the a-hole playing a paladin type who ends up tromping on all the other playerchars choices. Or the "CN" halfling rogue that says "Its in my concept" to steal everything in sight, and then nick things from the PCs themselves.
ramzafft1 03-15-06, 05:17 PM	I think I know what kind of character you're going for, but being unfamiliar with Serenity I'll offer this advice: 1. Do not steal from/maim/torture/etc. your own party members. They will kill you in fits of rage. Especially the chaotic ones. 2. If your fighter even MENTIONS the prospect of becoming a paladin, you're in deep. Tread carefully even if he doesn't turn pally. Part of his alignment description incorporates becoming a zealous spreader of truth and justice... 3. If all else fails, carry a lead sheet, and claim it's part of your culture. ;)
ressurrector 03-16-06, 12:39 AM	3. If all else fails, carry a lead sheet, and claim it's part of your culture. ;) And they're multi-purpose too!
RottingColossus 03-16-06, 11:58 AM	You guys have brought up some good points, especially on the theme of LE characters working in primarily-good parties. Do you think a CE character could be pulled of in the same, assuming its creator isn't some fool who wants to play a chaotic-stupid-mass-random-murderer. I'm a great believer in multi-aligned parties. Intelligent players and DM's will know that CE doesn't mean stupid, could a CE individual agree to bear the presence of good characters if it helped them achieve their goals?
Twisted Puppy 03-16-06, 02:29 PM	I'm a great believer in multi-aligned parties. Intelligent players and DM's will know that CE doesn't mean stupid, could a CE individual agree to bear the presence of good characters if it helped them achieve their goals? Of course they would. The problem is, could the good characters bear his presence? In the situation you describe, the good aligned characters are seen by the CE character as pawns. I can't think of any reason they would want to keep him around once they discovered his true colors.
ressurrector 03-16-06, 05:45 PM	Of course they would. The problem is, could the good characters bear his presence? In the situation you describe, the good aligned characters are seen by the CE character as pawns. I can't think of any reason they would want to keep him around once they discovered his true colors. I can think of one specific situation: he's usefull, and nobody else can really fill his role in the party. If you combine that and the fact that he dosen't turn on the party EVER, then you are probably fine. However, it may be hard to roleplay a chaotic character with some lines that CANNOT be crossed (attacking/stealing from other players).
Twisted Puppy 03-16-06, 06:12 PM	I can think of one specific situation: he's usefull, and nobody else can really fill his role in the party. If you combine that and the fact that he dosen't turn on the party EVER, then you are probably fine. Possibly so. Even more likely if the player can generate a good roleplaying reason he's with the group - say he has known one of the characters since childhood, and likes him/her a lot despite being a goody-two-shoes. I've had too many instances of a player wanting to play CE (or CN, while actually being CE) and ruining the fun for other players. I'm not saying that will always happen. I'm saying that it happens more often than not.
kelvinaw273 03-17-06, 01:28 AM	The important thing to remember is that while Alignment is objective, alignment on a personal level is very subjective. few evil people think of themselves as actaully being evil, they consider their actions to be justified wither by imagined motives of those they strike down, devotion to a 'higher good' or similar. You can play this character three ways: 1) The character believes they are Good. They believe that for the world to be a happy place those that defy their ethical code must be eliminated by any means necessary. They are evil in that they lack any sense of justice, mercy or compassion. They do not realise that their means will forever place the world they seek out of their reach. If the other PCs ever confront him about his deeds, he will argue black is white to justify them and claim that they, not he, weaken the cause of good by refusing to take hard decisions. They are namby-pamby bleeding-heart liberals why haven't the guts to do things properly, although their goals are the same as his (their sole mitigating trait). Most likely LE, thinks he is LG and regards everyone in the party as barely better than N. He'll preserve the peasce inthe party by not doing anything that'll set off their whinging if he can help it - not in front of them, anyway. "Goddam it, if you want strong government you have to have decisive action, even if it means a few people get hurt!" 2) The character has no higher goals, he is selfish and self-serving. He imagines anything that prevents him getting what is 'his' does so for their own selfish and self-serving reasons. But the rest of the party are excepted from that, and they are his friends. They treat him right, he treats them right, although it pains him to see other people disrespecting them and not getting what they deserve for it (until he can catch up with them later, maybe). Anytime somebody defends themselves against him, he believes he was the victim. Probably NE, thinks he is N and so is the rest of the party. He won't hide his actions because he doesn't think anything he does is wrong. "He started it - he was flashing around the cash he stole off me last week, what else was I supposed to do?" 3) The character is well aware that he is a low down, underhand git. But he also understands that if everyone was like that the world would fall apart. He is better off sticking with these guys because they are, frankly, better than he is or can hope to be. He doesn't deserve good friends like that, but there you go, he'll stick with them because they stuck by him - but anyone else is fair game. Probably CE. He'll avoid being a git in front of the party, although he may use his immoral nature to intimidate on occasion. "See my friend over there in the armour? He's nice. He won't hurt you just because you shopped us to the baron's men. Men like him, they're honest, upstanding people who oppose the baron and his thugs. Me now, I'm NOT nice. I take things like that VERY personally, so you're going to tell us where the Baron's other agent has our other friend before me and Mr Knife get twitchy ... and if we get twitchy you'll be taking a message to the baron that'll make you wish you were dead ..."
BlackMoria 03-17-06, 10:59 AM	Hmmm. Why is it that there is always one person in the group who wants to go against the grain? The rest of the party is good but he wants to be evil or the rest of the party are team players but he wants to be a lone wolf. I have two very simple rules as DM that I expect everyone to abide by. 1. Your character must have a good reason for being with the people you are adventuring with, and 2. Your character must get along with the other characters. Note that I am not limiting alignment or character classes. My players just have to abide by my two rules. So, if you want to be an assassin and another player wants a paladin character, then rule 1 and 2 are in violation and the two players need to work it out somehow (usually by having one or both players change their character concept). I have played many, many campaigns in 30 years of playing D&D. Why is it that there is always one person who picks a character whose purpose appears to be a liability to party cohesion? In real life, you wouldn't hang out with people you didn't like or didn't have common ground with, so why pick a character you know is not going to get along with the party. Note: This is not specifically directed at the OP, just questions in general.
ressurrector 03-17-06, 12:38 PM	One other group I'm in has a good example of a CE adventurer in a primarily Neutral and Good group. The character is pretty much a screwup, he tries to steal everything, and isn't very good at it. He is a habitual liar wth no bluff ranks and an 8 CHA. The reason we have him in our party is this: we looted a Demon Lords garden, and though we aren't really worth the trouble since our actions created considerable chaos in the mortal world, he must keep up appearances. Thusly he found the least capable of his minions and sent him after us, and we're fine with it since we're not dealing with competent evil, which could be very bad. Better the ditzy devil you know.
danielinthewolvesden 03-17-06, 12:50 PM	Talk to your DM first. Many will ban this outright. If he is OK, go to the other players. Again, many will simply not play with you. Some may. Right. If you get a "buy in" from all, then fine, sounds like fun. Don't start stealing from the party, however!
Lincoln Hills 03-17-06, 03:58 PM	Although I like the Operative as an adversary, he's a poor choice for group play. Maybe you noticed that he worked alone? Used others as tools when necessary but would set them aside without a second thought? The Operative's self-hate is part of what made the character sympathetic... but it also meant that he wouldn't form friendships. A self-confessed monster will spurn efforts at friendship: some would-be 'friends' are obviously scum if they're willing to associate with a 'monster', while other 'friends' are good people who shouldn't be exposed to the darkness which the 'monster' contains (and brings). That's OK for a temporary NPC ally of the party... and great for a villain's personality/motivation... but it doesn't work well in a group setting (such as a gaming table). If you simply can't live without trying this character concept, I advise you to inform all the other players (and the DM, duh!) of the concept from the beginning. Their characters should start out (mostly) ignorant of the truth, but you'll find the rest of the table capable of enjoying your "sulky, independent focus hog" if they're in on the story.
Rosisha 03-18-06, 11:52 AM	I think the best reason for varried alingments can be summed up in what a friend told me regarding his own campaign... The DM loved traps. Specificially he loved traps that were based off of fundamental aspects of your character: gender, race, alingment, etc. alingment, however, was the most common. So the players are scouring a dungeon and the DM forgot that one of his PCs was evil. The BBEG set up all these traps to fry good and neutral people, and the one evil character was able to sneak in and assassinate him (i don't have any details, something about being loaded up with all the parties special gear, so I'm assuming wands of fireballs, scrolls, etc. Probably was pretty cool to watch). Anywho, main bad guy dies, traps fade away, group loots like mad. I know this is a very particular case which is (kind of) metagaming, but I also believed that a strong party of heroes should have the anti-hero character (whether he finds redemption or not is another matter) in order to be well rounded. Cynicism and world-loathing are necessary traits as well. to quote: It takes all sorts. Rosisha
zlatko 03-18-06, 12:31 PM	Just one question. It'sa retorical one. How did that guy in Serenity end up? :weep:
DeadlyDM 03-18-06, 07:02 PM	My concern is that if you play evil you'll be fully susceptible to the multitude of evil-effecting spells and powers that your do-gooder fellow PC's will be dispensing against your opponents, particulalry once area spells come into play at intermediate-later levels. Likewise you won't benefit from the good-aligned abjurations that the party will be enjoying.
ank 03-24-06, 10:51 PM	If there is one thing ive learned in my group its that they are MURDERING LUNATICS! One of the team members always tries to run a demon past the group and ALWAYS gets slaughtered for it (despite my attemps as a druid/cleric to keep him at least alive). He then rolls a new charecter (that eats into my time since he needs my books for it) and repeats this. A rogue will fit in well with just about any group given they have the right sort of justification. It sounds like your cleric wants you around and will pay you (almost like an npc) do stick around (i like the sound of this guy, he likes dragons :D ). However, an evil charecter is running the borderline with a religion based campain where they will basically be killing people *EXACTLY* like you. My advice: lie loooooow, very low, and do your job well.
danielinthewolvesden 03-25-06, 03:37 AM	If there is one thing ive learned in my group its that they are MURDERING LUNATICS! One of the team members always tries to run a demon past the group and ALWAYS gets slaughtered for it (despite my attemps as a druid/cleric to keep him at least alive). He then rolls a new charecter (that eats into my time since he needs my books for it) and repeats this. "Rule 1. No Evils." This should be a default rule in most games. Not that an occasional Evil campaign run with mature players and an experienced DM can't be fun.
Lonewolve 03-25-06, 09:05 AM	I think it's cool to play an evil character in the middle of a good party. it gives you the oppertunity to use a lot of psycological elements. for example: I play a rogue and my friends play a paladin and a ranger(both good allignments). i'm now trying to play thme out against eacother. you could use move sillently to steal things and put them in anotherone's pocket. it's challenging but real fun.
ScipioX 03-25-06, 12:14 PM	@Lonewovle: Fun for you maybe, but rarely fun for the other players. Remember, this is a group game. You shouldn't go making characters that are going to sabotage the other players. Nor should you make a character that is going to act as an attention hog, constantly doing sneaky things when the other players aren't paying attention. This basically takes spotlight time away from teh rest of the group as they sit around waiting for you to resolve your actions that screwing them over. This kind of thing can work in the right PLAYER environment, where they enjoy the challenges of what is essentially covert PvP. But in most groups, playing an evil character, and especially one that is out to subvert the group, is a direct route to ****** off players and sometimes even broken friendships.
Nephlite 03-25-06, 12:38 PM	The Operative in Serenity struck me a very good example of Lawful Evil. He definately wouldn't qualify as Lawful good, simply because a Lawful Good charcter always strives to take the moral and ethical high ground. A Lawful Good character doesn't throw innocent people to the wolves to accomplish their goals, nor do they strike at an opponent through friends and family. If you forgot Operative knows he is evil. But he believes in a perfect world. To get this he knows he must do evil so others can have paradise. "But you can't live in that world, can you" "No, like you captain, we must both perish". He knows he is evil, but be loves and strives for good...for others. Perfectly, Lawful evil. But I tend to run alignment based on both motive and deed. To keep your alignment one must stay true in both thought and deed. Doing something awful for a good end does not excuse the awful deed. Agreed ends do not justify means. A Lawful Good character would not strangle a infant to death in it's crib, even if they knew the child would become a mass murderer. A Lawful Evil character would in a heartbeat. Evil characters in a good party tend to occupy the role of "necessary evil". They are capable and willing of doing things that other party members would find distasteful or wicked, but ultimately help the party. The concept for your character works as long as you remember that you do evil things because every now and again an evil deed must be done. In the evil person's mind (most of them I persume) believes ends do justify means. Darth Tyranus thought so.
jaydubyadub 03-25-06, 12:57 PM	Why couldn't you just be chaotic neutral and be Jayne? Then you could have a giant statue and have songs written about you by mud-farmers! ^_^
jaydubyadub 03-25-06, 12:58 PM	Why couldn't you just be chaotic neutral and be Jayne? Then you could have a giant statue and have songs written about you by mud-farmers! ^_^ P.S. If you take this idea, you HAVE to get a great crossbow from Races of Stone. Extra points if you name it "Vera." If you refer to it as "Your very favorite crossbow," your DM is morally obligated to hand out a small bonus xp reward.
ressurrector 03-25-06, 01:34 PM	I'm playing a L/E Warlock in a good/Neutral group, and no problems so far. I don't do anything to harm the party, but it's quite clear that I'm out to help myself and don't care much about anyone else. I adventure with them because it's safer and more effective, they adventure with me because I don't do aanything C/Eish, and all my actions have reasons they can at least understand, not to mention I'm highly usefull.
yaara 04-18-06, 10:26 AM	There are a few things you must consider before you continue with the character concept. 1. How will it affect the storyline? Generally if it is a good group, an evil rogue will stick out like a sore thumb, through your actions you will betray your alignment. A good Cleric will sense you, and unless you can explain yourself in an acceptable way, you will be killed. 2. What purpose are you serving by being evil? As an evil character, your purpose will usually be something dire. How does this help the group? 3. Character concepts from movies or books are seldom pulled off right by players, it is far too easy to botch the character and ruin the whole idea..... this will turn out badley for you and your group. A character surrounded by good is going to be hard pressed to not convert or change their ideas to fit better into the group. The assassin from Serenity changed his alignment instantly when he saw the vid of how the reavers were made.... your character will eventually face the same kind of delimma( sp? ).
yaara 04-18-06, 10:29 AM	I'm playing a L/E Warlock in a good/Neutral group, and no problems so far. I don't do anything to harm the party, but it's quite clear that I'm out to help myself and don't care much about anyone else. I adventure with them because it's safer and more effective, they adventure with me because I don't do aanything C/Eish, and all my actions have reasons they can at least understand, not to mention I'm highly usefull. How are you playing evil if you don't act evil? harming the party would most likely be the first thing on your mind when you wake up and the last thing when you fall asleep. No matter how useful a character is, if a good group runs into a powerful evil they will clash. you are playing Chaotic Neutral. You are important, no one or nothing else is as important or unique as you. Lawful Neutral is not what you should be playing with the mage........
danielinthewolvesden 04-18-06, 11:37 AM	@Lonewovle: Fun for you maybe, but rarely fun for the other players. Remember, this is a group game. You shouldn't go making characters that are going to sabotage the other players. Nor should you make a character that is going to act as an attention hog, constantly doing sneaky things when the other players aren't paying attention. This basically takes spotlight time away from teh rest of the group as they sit around waiting for you to resolve your actions that screwing them over. Right, we always get folks in here that say they are having such a good time running the CN or CE rogue, stealing from the party and so forth. But you never hear the other players come in and say they are having fun, now do we?
yaara 04-18-06, 12:07 PM	Right, we always get folks in here that say they are having such a good time running the CN or CE rogue, stealing from the party and so forth. But you never hear the other players come in and say they are having fun, now do we? Exactly right, I've seen entire groups fall apart because of an evil character constantly screwing them over...... Understand that the game is there for everyone to have fun.... when you screw your party, you **** off the players, when you **** off the players the session and possibly the entire campaign is over..... all for what? If you still feel the need to play an evil character i suggest you talk it over with your group and see if you can't get a side campaign going that is primarily evil....
Yak of Darkness 04-18-06, 12:09 PM	How are you playing evil if you don't act evil? harming the party would most likely be the first thing on your mind when you wake up and the last thing when you fall asleep.Because "evil" doesn't have to be synonymous with "raving psychotic." Although not directly OT, I think this kind of view is where a great deal of the "CN on the sheet, CE in practice comes from." The player of such a character can always rationalize what he's doing by thinking, "Hey, there's always someone worse out there." Stealing from the party? Hey, at least I'm not cutting their throats while they sleep. Cut one of their throats while they sleep? Hey, at least I didn't eat their guts afterwards. Kill anyone who's in the way of my goals? Hey, at least I think/say my goals are good . . . that totally makes me at least neutral! Plus, for anyone who thinks that Evil Character = Must Backstab Party (which is only true if the player is an ass, alignment be damned), how do you think evil organizations ever get off the ground? Now, granted, your average mafia, or theives' guild, or dark cult, or rape-and-pillage warrior tribe might have their fair share of dissent and infighting, which (given the members of such groups) could indeed turn violent and backstabby. But how did these people ever meet in the first place? How did they ever spend enough time together not killing each other to form groups? Why do we even need adventurers, if all the evil people are going to be too busy killing their friends for no reason to have any evil plans of their own? Evil PCs can work fine in a party (barring there being a paladin there . . . but to be fair, playing a paladin is just as, if not more, inherently limiting or potentially disruptive to the rest of the group than playing an evil character is). Mutinous, player-killing jerk evil PCs played by jackass players cannot work fine in a party . . . but then again, mutinous, player-killing PCs of any alignment played by jackass players are going to be a problem. If there's an evil PC problem, odds are good it's the dude at the table causing it, and not the two-letter alignment abbreviation on his character sheet.
bob_the_great 04-18-06, 02:03 PM	rather than ask the boards, discuss it with the dm and other players. if you aren't going to betray your allies, you don't need to hide the fact that you're evil from the other players (though your character doesn't have to announce it). if you might betray your allies and therefore want to hide it, well that'd be selfish, disruptive, and stupid so preventing that would be good. if the other players don't mind you being evil even if it harms their characters, then go nuts.
Dragon Snack 04-18-06, 02:10 PM	Because "evil" doesn't have to be synonymous with "raving psychotic." <snip> But how did these people ever meet in the first place? How did they ever spend enough time together not killing each other to form groups? Why do we even need adventurers, if all the evil people are going to be too busy killing their friends for no reason to have any evil plans of their own?Amen. I've actually been an "other player" in a campaign with an Evil character. It did cause some problems (mostly because the character was a straight up thief), but was not campaign ending. In fact, it offered up some good roleplaying opportunities. However, I'll also note that the PCs descent into Evil was only temporary. That said, I think your best bet is to talk to the other players about it - whatever we have to say means diddly, we don't have to sit at the table with you...
mlund 04-18-06, 02:36 PM	Yeah, the Operative is Lawful Evil like you read about. He has an order for the new world envisioned. He'll stoop to any means to accomplish that goal - even if it means trampling completely on the values of the world-as-it-ought-to-be. Some depictions of devils are the same way - they argue that Creation is flawed and the only way to get it right is to wipe away the Creator's imperfections in oblivion. They have no regard for all the suffering and devestation they'll visit upon people for it. Some of them even rationalize that we deserve it because we are part of the problem rather than the solution. Devils are supposed to be a gold standard for Lawful Evil. Lawful Evil characters are playable with heroes so long as they are working together further's their ultimate ends. Some of them can even be taken at their word. Others may only be trustworthy while you're on the same side of a conflict. Once they no longer need you, however, you are expendible. It is definitely a gamble there. - Marty Lund
Man in the Funny Hat 04-18-06, 04:49 PM	Yes, it's possible to play an evil character in an all-good party - but I wouldn't recommend it ever. You shouldn't even consider attempting it unless not only yourself, but everyone at the table is a "mature" roleplayer. That means that you have to understand that nobody at the table has a right to be a jerk and spoil the fun for anyone, much less everyone. Not all alignments, character classes, character concepts, or in-game attitudes are a RIGHT that a player may inherently exercise. If you play this evil character you and everyone else need to expect conflict to come of it. And it will come sooner rather than later, if not immediately. If there is even one player at the table who you think might not be able to handle it properly, don't do it. If you do it anyway and you then find out later that someone just can't get deal with it appropriately in-game or out-of-game, then you'd best be prepared to either change that characters attitude and alignment or roll up another character altogether that won't cause problems among the PLAYERS. I have never, EVER seen this work out well in the long term and it usually blows up rapidly into players being very angry with other players. Like it or not there is an unwritten mandate that the player characters need to get along with each other well enough to associate for life-and-death, long-term situations. You mess with that at your peril.
yaara 04-18-06, 05:25 PM	The thing is, as a responsible character, is it in the best interest of the game for you to play a selfish, evil character? when one comes up with a character concept, one must think of what the other players will play like, and how they will react to you. Yes, I know the guy you are talking about in serenity, the guy knows he is a monster. He is a paladin for an evil god, though he thinks he is working for a good god... in this case he was brainwashed into thinking his boss was doing the right thing. sometimes to keep the cosmic balance, one must be willing to delve into the deepest of evil to accomplish the greatest of good. Sounds to me that you are wanting to play a CN character. you want to be selfish and bad, while doing what you think is good. you are trying to hit too many ends of the alignment spectrum. This character will be hard to play, and you must consider that. A good cleric would most likely kill you, or tell his stronger friends that you been a bad boy/girl...... someone would suspect you all the time... this could rip your group apart. while that could be good in an epic campaign ( by epic i mean long lasting, well told story) this could be complete disaster in a smaller, "normal" campaign.