By The Gnomemaster
In my Recent D&D Game, a player of mine designed himself a rogue who was bent on becoming a freelancing assassin. His name was Zero, and he was Chaotic Evil (a fact about his character that his two co-adventurers had yet to catch). Several of Zero’s exploits are perfect examples of what I call Evil Dumb. He urinated on the walls of random buildings for the sake of peeing, killed almost every NPC he could get his blades upon, stole from every church he could, and angered every NPC he couldn’t kill.
This is Evil Dumb. See, the alignment system is a way of keeping players from acting so dumb. The Paladin doesn’t do this because if he did it would make him lose his abilities. By playing an evil character, player’s find themselves with many more opportunities. As the goody-two-shoes elf archer they could only kill bad guys, but as a bad guy they could kill every body! This is a potential Player pitfall: this could tear away from a DM’s serious plot, or it could take away from other player’s personal stories. Evil Dumb is also an excellent example of Psychosis. If your character is psychotic, then by all means continue to kill things randomly!
However, there is hope. Evil Smart is, in my humble opinion, the best way to play evil. And because there are several ways to be evil, Evil Smart covers almost all of it. An evil character should be pragmatic, he understands that it is beneficial for him to combine forces with others (why else do you think that Batman’s villains always worked best when they teamed up?). However, an Evil Smart always has ulterior motives. He may be waiting for the right moment to turn on his allies or to turn them against each other.
**Game Idea** A perfect way to turn your friends against each other, is to grab a small sheet of paper and fold it up. Write down a Weapon that the fighter would love to have, (Example “I’m stealing the +3 Great Axe”) give it to the DM when no one is looking, or plan this before hand. Then when the moment is right, shout that John’s Rogue is stealing a great axe from the treasure trove that Mary’s fighter would want. Let the DM agree, holding up the tiny sheet of paper and say “He’s right, John’s stealing the axe and selling it” if Mary roleplays properly, she’ll attack John for the axe that may not even exist.
Evil Smart characters also understand the power of corruption. I strongly suggest they take the Leadership feat, so they can have minions to watch their backs against your friends.
I am currently playing in an evil game in which I had two characters. One is a lich and the other a dreadnaught. My dreadnaught thinks he is the **** so he picks fights. He isn't stupid, maybe not as smart as any of the other party members.
My lich was cold and calculating. He would let stuff "slide" off his back like he didn’t care, till he killed party members and raised them under his control. All in all, my dreadnaught has killed more party members than the lich mainly because they try to talk crap to him and he doesn't take it. He slaughters them and moves on. It was always the same guys PC I killed too. We finally told him he takes up too much game time and can't play anymore. Anyway, the lich only killed one PC because he sees the value of the others staying alive. The others see the lich as a tremendous asset because he was the only cleric the party EVER had.I do agree with a lot you have to say, but I think that playing that char isn’t necessarily stupid evil. To me it depends on the PC. If they don't know what they are doing then yea possibly stupid.
I am currently playing in an evil game in which I had two characters. One is a lich and the other a dreadnaught. My dreadnaught thinks he is the **** so he picks fights. He isn't stupid, maybe not as smart as any of the other party members.
I'm afraid this doesn't make sense to me. You killed another player's characters multiple times, and then he got booted from the party for wasting time? Your reason for killing him was because he "tried to talk crap" to you? I feel more than a little sorry for that player...
In any of the campaigns I run, I don't allow players to play characters who are so hot-headed that they go for each other's throats whenever an argument breaks out. This deters from the focus of the game, which should be to overcome actual encounters. I can't understand how people enjoy constant intra-party combat. Isn't it more fun to work together as a bonded team to accomplish actual goals and, you know, adventure? I'm not saying every character needs to get along perfectly, but deaths caused by intentional acts of fellow party members should be rare indeed.
I guess that's why I don't DM evil campaigns.
All in all, my dreadnaught has killed more party members than the lich mainly because they try to talk crap to him and he doesn't take it.
The thinking that the more party members you kill the more evil your character is is one of the worst problems I ever encounter in evil campaigns. Maybe it's fun to just see how many of you can kill each other (and there's always at least one person in each group that a given other person could kill, since the classes are balanced to fight as a group not one class against another), but just killing party members is evil in the most metagamed sense possible. What exactly is your character achieving by killing his allies? To your character they're just people, they're not special because they're "PC's", your character doesn't even know what that means. Thus, why would they make it a special focus to kill THEM?
It was always the same guys PC I killed too. We finally told him he takes up too much game time and can't play anymore.
I don't want this to be construed as a flame, but this is one of the most disrespectful things I've heard of in a D&D game. You killed HIS character repeatedly and forced HIM to leave? That's ridiculous; the simple solution is don't kill his character. Roleplaying might dictate that your character would probably kill his character, but simple respect and good gameplay manners have to overule roleplaying for a good game. Take some responsibility for yourself, even if you are playing an evil game, and solve the problem by your action (or, in this case, inaction as your action if killing him would be the problem), rather than by blaming it on his character taking up too much time.
Finally, it seems you assume all evil people will take revenge for an insult (though admittedly, I very much like that cool-calculating lich who waited for revenge and then brought the dead back as servants, very nice). I'd try to shy away from this. The most dangerous man is the one who doesn't CARE about being insulted. Sure those secretly insecure villains are decent for playing in an evil campaign, but if you want a true climber in the world of evil, you need someone who just ignores the petty insults of those around him. Why kill someone for something so worthless? That moron insulting you isn't worth your time, time that could be spent becoming a better overlord. Killing him could get you into needless trouble with the law or worse yet end you up with some of those nasty vengeful relatives.
The thinking that the more party members you kill the more evil your character is is one of the worst problems I ever encounter in evil campaigns. Maybe it's fun to just see how many of you can kill each other (and there's always at least one person in each group that a given other person could kill, since the classes are balanced to fight as a group not one class against another), but just killing party members is evil in the most metagamed sense possible. What exactly is your character achieving by killing his allies? To your character they're just people, they're not special because they're "PCs", your character doesn't even know what that means. Thus, why would they make it a special focus to kill THEM?
I play another PC in the game that Boris mentions so I felt it necessary to input my 2 cents. One of the things that was failed to be mentioned is the fact this is an Epic Evil game. Right now the party levels range from 31-33. The character in question (who is a Duergar, Barbarian/Fighter/Battle Rager/Legendary Dreadnaught) is more or less an engine of destruction. This character is extremely temperamental and was in no way picking on PCs or more specifically the one that killed repeatedly. The Duergar is a melee powerhouse (last session he full attacked and did something like 680 points of damage) which is exactly why the rest of the party puts up with his love of bloodshed. I say 'put up with' because some other party members enjoy a more subtle way of evil. My character for example is a succubus, and she enjoys corrupting others and making them sign away their souls.
I think it bares some importance to look at the out of character situation here as well. The player who had multiple characters killed really had it coming. He purposefully would create characters to challenge other characters in the party. So he angered other party members as well, but the Duergar by far had the shortest fuse. And it wasn't simply the party he infuriated, this guy told off a demon prince in his own layer of the Abyss, and directly cursed a deity while just outside his divine realm.
If I remember correctly there was a period of time where he played 3 consecutive sessions each with a brand new character. Needless to say, this player's suicidal tendencies got a bit boorish. He picked fights with the Deurgar because he had a personal vendetta out of game, and each new character provided a different strategy to attack this character and de-throne him. He tried an assassin, a wizard, an anti-paladin, but nothing seemed to work. In the end the DM got tired of this player constantly creating new characters and lagging up his storyline with having to introduce them.
I don't want this to be construed as a flame, but this is one of the most disrespectful things I've heard of in a D&D game. You killed HIS character repeatedly and forced HIM to leave? That's ridiculous; the simple solution is don't kill his character. Roleplaying might dictate that your character would probably kill his character, but simple respect and good gameplay manners have to overule roleplaying for a good game. Take some responsibility for yourself, even if you are playing an evil game, and solve the problem by your action (or, in this case, inaction as your action if killing him would be the problem), rather than by blaming it on his character taking up too much time.
While I will agree that sometimes having a good game requires curbing some things your character might really do so all the PCs can get along, that in no way means one player should have the right to have his character constantly belittle and provoke another and they just have to suck it up. This holds especially true of an evil game. Our DM also has a pretty Existentialist view of his campaign world. We can do whatever we want but every action holds consequences.
Yes, the Duergar was prone to angry outbursts, but at least Boris was playing his character true to his nature. The other player was more or less metagaming, bringing in new characters who always happened to hate and harass the Deurgar because he held an out of game grudge.
Finally, it seems you assume all evil people will take revenge for an insult (though admittedly, I very much like that cool-calculating lich who waited for revenge and then brought the dead back as servants, very nice). I'd try to shy away from this. The most dangerous man is the one who doesn't CARE about being insulted. Sure those secretly insecure villains are decent for playing in an evil campaign, but if you want a true climber in the world of evil, you need someone who just ignores the petty insults of those around him. Why kill someone for something so worthless? That moron insulting you isn't worth your time, time that could be spent becoming a better overlord. Killing him could get you into needless trouble with the law or worse yet end you up with some of those nasty vengeful relatives.
I agree with you on the most dangerous villains are the ones who care little about insults. But you also have to take into account the fact that some characters are just looking for an excuse to kill. Sure they could just kill everyone they see, but the fact that they were insulted makes it all the more fun when you feel your axe split their skull.
Power level also plays a role. When it comes down to it, Evil will do whatever it wants to achieve its goals. The main difference between the intelligence of smart and dumb evil really lies in assessing the situation and possible consequences. If you can do things that were previously called 'evil dumb' and get away with them without consequence (or at least immediate consequences), then why not do them? 'Evil smart' isn't as simple as doing things that inherently are easier to get away with. I would define 'evil smart' as the ability to assess consequences and make proper judgments in a given situation. Whether the character tempts souls or cracks skulls if of little consequence in this regard.
Things that are considered 'evil smart' carry a risk as well, but for most characters they will find this brand of evil a bit safer to mortal eyes, but the forces of good will probably look upon the crafty 'evil smart' character with a bit more attention. Simply killing someone is less evil by far than corrupting them and having their soul carried off to the lower planes.
Now tell me how good of a player he is. He has had more characters, each worthless and a waste of time to create and introduce. So we just stopped inviting him to our gaming session. You can't possibly say this is bad on our part. He was arrogant in real life, all the other players hated wasting time on his "uber broken" characters just for him to insult the party members and expect to have our respect. As a side note, this is an EPIC evil game. Anyone can tell you that evil would not put up with any of his stupid characters. He called a demon price a "son of a *****" to his face.
Anyway, enough about that game. I think stupid and smart evil just depends on how they see themselves and how they judge the circumstances. If a truly evil player sees that he could take out Waterdeep with no problem and has a lot to gain, why wouldn't he/she/it? It's not stupid, it's smart. Then again stupid and smart are all up to the person; what’s dumb to one is ingenious to the other.
A party doesn't get along with each other because all the members are good - they work together for mutual benefit. Evil people work together for mutual benefit too. This is how organized crime works, how street gangs work, etc.
Evil doesn't equal self destructive; in fact evil people tend to have a greater sense of self preservation than to do good people. For an evil character to try to fight his own allies is self destructive. An Evil Smart character should always work within his party helping them as he can for the mutual benefit of the party - because what the Evil Smart character ultimately cares about is his own personal gain, not how much hand wringing he can do.
I've seen a number of well played evil characters who were smart - they didn't kill party members, they were helpful members of the party. They joined the party for their own personal gain and as long as that happened being a part of the party was fine and the safety and wellbeing of party members was in the best interest of said evil characters.
I play a lawful evil mage, he is a stubborn bastard who only really cares about himself, but as long as there is only mild danger to him, he will go out of his way to make sure that other party members are not left behind. Everyone gets a fair share of the treasure, and everything is done according to the agreed upon rules that were established before the adventure started. If he inserted a couple of clauses that are to his advantage, and allow him a slightly higher share of treasure, or ensure he gets first pick of items then it is the other peoples fault for agreeing to his terms in the first place. They can make a better deal on the next adventure
He helps the party because it is not in his interest to not help the party; he will rescue slaves, and help downtrodden people, and generally try to be a stand up guy. He will however make sure other people are aware of what he has done. Otherwise how would they know what a great person he is?
His cohorts get the best equipment and quarters, and anything he can do to make them happy he does. After all he would not do it for them, but he expects them to put their lives on the line for him.
Yes, it has however happened that there has been that occasional you or me situation. Such as having three people attached to a rope. The top person has a grip, and the bottom two have lost theirs. Needless to say the 2nd person down made the pragmatic choice and cut the rope to the lower person. Sorry but the fighter would not have been able to pull up both of us, and I made sure that we recovered the body, and got that third person raised. The character does not expect to go to a good place when he dies, and expects the same treatment. He does not expect to be cut loose, but he definitely expects to be raised.
The point of this post is that Evil smart does not always appear evil. Alignment in D&D has always just been a classification. The person may even think he is good. My character does not, but if the person is good and just does WHATEVER it takes to get the job done, and has no real issues doing evil things he would have to be classified as something. He may be puzzled when the protection from evil works on him.
...if the person is good and just does WHATEVER it takes to get the job done, and has no real issues doing evil things he would have to be classified as something. He may be puzzled when the protection from evil works on him.
That’s the problem with Misguided Evil in D&D. You can't be half-way sane and think "I'm a good person" while you walk around setting off paladins left and right. Evil-ness is detectable, not "personal choice" or "relative" or any other relativistic notion.