I've had some odd instances before in past playing sessions due to some players choosing the evil alignment in an overall good aligned party. Mainly when it would come to taking prisoners or splitting gold and other similar events.
My question is, does anyone have any interesting stories or past problems such as myself when it came to situations like this? My initial thoughts on this problem is always the same. "If your character is evil and mine is good I wouldn't coencide with you in the first place let alone adventure with you."
Most players really don't care what the alignments of the others are, so long as they're not being total dicks to one another. That's rule 1.
My current party is made up of a CG Elf Wizard, CG Human Sorceror, LG Dwarf Cleric(benevolent DMPC), LG Human Fighter/Marshall, and a CE Halfling Rogue.
The rogue is your standard greedy, murderous little git but we tolerate him because he has not yet directly harmed the party (he has kept important info from us from time to time though).
He started as Chaotic Neutral but shifted to Evil after killing a street urchin just to get information on the city's thieves guild. We do not know of this and carefully avoid finding out in order to preserve party cohesion.
It also helps that there is very little roleplaying in our games. Properly played I don't think an evil party member will be bad for a mostly good party, the problem comes when the evil players try to get to overt in their actions or when they betray the party.
I say at least 1 because there's a definite possibility that the 3rd sorceror is also turning to the dark side. Unfortunately the player couldn't make the last session so we didn't get to see how a deciding situation is going to play out.
The party;
*Human Cleric of Ra - LG? NG? Good in any event.
*1/2orc Fighter - LG
*1/2ling Rogue - CG
*1/2 elf Sorceror - CG
*Human Sorceror (#2) - LE
*Human Sorceror (#3) - CG? CN? Definitly chaotic & definitely slipping....
The LE sorceror has ambitions to have legions of dominated thralls. He's known to be of evil intent. For now though he's tolerated by the other PCs because A) he's usefull enough atm, B) he hasn't really done anything "evil" per-se, & definitly not to those he's found himself forced to work along side (the party), C) he's not crazy powerfull yet.
I predict it'll get interesting a few weeks from now.
#3 looks like he's cracking under the strain. His actions have grown erratic & more violent. Simmering antipathy towards the 1/2orc, casually (and knowingly) including the others in his AoEs, and a bunch of other little things. Could go either way, but the other players have simply asumed he's becoming evil on them. Unlike #2 he's not quite as usefull. I bet I know how this turns out eventually.....
I never have this issue, as I banned evil PCs about two decades ago.
touche
They can work out just fine if done correctly.
Still, to do this requires someone playing an evil character intelligently. If the PC sees a kid in the street and decides he just has to strangle the kid because he's "evil" that's a recipe for disaster. Doing this requires a bit of subtlety and skill.
There are many problems, First there are those who use their allignmnet as an excuse to be jerks (they just want to screw the other players over and stab them in their sleep). Second there are those who are too imuture to play evil (or play at all for that matter) they just play insane lunitics who murder and slaughter and are depraved for no real reason. And then there are those who are simply not playing the same game as the rest of the party, that is the person who is trying to do Evil, while the rest of the group is trying to be heroic, and they have to put up with him.
Now this isn't always the case, there are mature groups and individuals who can play evil properly, without being jerks, without harming the party and without crossing the party goals.
Evil doesn't have to be crazy, insane lunitics. You don't have to murder and steal everything. You might be willing to and often do, you probably have, but not for no reason whatsoever.
For example, An assassin won't think twice about killing someone, but he doesn't do it for no reason whatsoever. A Lawful Evil assasin might be a merciless killer, but he is a killer for Profit. He kills because he is paid to kill, and will likely Not want to leave a trail of bodies behind that can be traced to his movements so is unlikely to kill anyone unless he is paid. It is even possible that he will only take Guild Sanctioned Hits, or work exclusively for a particular client. And since it is in his best interest to keep his real occupation a secret, the party might never even figure out he is Evil.
As for killing prisoners, why? even evil people need a motive. If it is just for the fun of killing, then the party and the DM should treat the PC as they would any other Evil Being they encounter. If this happened while I was DMing, I would say "Ok the insane psycopath kills the prisoner as part of the suprise round, everyone roll initiative" There are alot of good reasons to take prisoners, they are sometimes worth more alive, they can be interogated for information, forced to pay a ransom to be released, turned over to the authorities for a reward (or the very least some fame) They can be held as hostages if they are attacked again, or at the least use as a barrier, they can be sold as slaves and in many cases (lawful good cases) this would be perfectly legal and aceptable form of punishment for criminals and evil creatures.
As for greed, would a greedy person sell all his stock investments, business etc and toss his money in a hole? No because his business and investments will make him more money. The same is for the treasure the party finds, his party members are an investment on his part. Sure he is greedy, but he isn't stupid. The evil person has to recognize that the treasure he finds in level 5 is much less then the treasue he gets at level 20. Therefore he must realize that he is investing in the party and that investment will yield far greater treasure in the future.
But to reach level 20 and have a chance at that level 20 treasure, then the evil person needs to tend to his investments with more care then robbing and pillaging his own business. This is the stupid level of greed. Betraying, killing and stealing from your own party is akin to robbing and burning your own business down after canceling your insurance policy. It's senceless.
As long as the player understands that Evil is not stupid or insane, that it has purpose, planning and motivation to benifit himself, then having an evil person working with the party isn't bad. But if the player doesn't understand the concept and plays evil to be a jerk or to be juvinile, then it isn't good.
My current party is made up of a CG Elf Wizard, CG Human Sorceror, LG Dwarf Cleric(benevolent DMPC), LG Human Fighter/Marshall, and a CE Halfling Rogue.
The rogue is your standard greedy, murderous little git but we tolerate him because he has not yet directly harmed the party (he has kept important info from us from time to time though).
He started as Chaotic Neutral but shifted to Evil after killing a street urchin just to get information on the city's thieves guild. We do not know of this and carefully avoid finding out in order to preserve party cohesion.
It also helps that there is very little roleplaying in our games. Properly played I don't think an evil party member will be bad for a mostly good party, the problem comes when the evil players try to get to overt in their actions or when they betray the party.
Changer the sorceror to a bard, add a female human rogue, and you have the Order of the Stick.
Aside from that... I've been the evil character before. She spent more time sneaking around getting things done out of sight of the party members prying eyes than she did with the group. Other players kept asking how she stayed evil, when she was doing so many "good things" in the campaign, like saving a LG prince from being sacrificed by a demon worshipper cult.
Look at it this way... she has a very powerful contact now, due to her "good" act. A powerful resource she can call upon or have access to in the future when discreet nefarious opportunities arise. Like implementing trade embargos with a neighboring kingdom to destabilize their economy so she could sneak in and set up a rock solid powerbase to eventually take over.
Properly done, it can really add to the campaign.
In retrospect it was probably because most of our players wanted to help out our DM, it was his first session ever as a DM, so we had accepted the idea of a lawful good party of Bahamutites to simply things for him.
On starting a new game, we were all epic level servants of Bahamut, one of our members attempted to rob a shop keeper when the rest were not looking. We attempted to arrest the member in question, when he resisted we were forced to fight him; killing him in the first round.
That is probably not the best course of action for a group of LGs to go about [knocking a person/creature out is a viable option instead of killing them. This doesn't have to be like oblivion] Granted I understand where you're coming from but personally I would have preferred to tackle the tougher bits first as a DM.
Evil doesn't mean that they don't do good things. Anti heroes from the BoVD 3.5 are a perfect example. They are evil not because of the outcome of their acts but because of what they do to accomplish those acts [or in a group of good characters what they're willing to do if the party lets them. It's only if the good acts start to effect the characters outlook on things that they turn away from evil [for example the assassin whose last contract is left unfulfilled because of the sacrifice one person made to another].
Going back, as for killing a prisoner, there are sometimes cases when it happens to be in the best interest for the party [or at least the evil character]. Granted the evil character should tread carefully any time that the party could find out about something that he did that was not good. [however if killing that prisoner means that they don't find out about something that was even less desirable then killing then said evil character would be smart to do it].
As far as being evil goes though, you definitely want somebody who will think about things before they do them.
Why does evil have to automatically make you a ****?
A long history of people who were ****s anyway writing "evil" in their character's alignment box and then using "it's what my character would do" to justify wrecking everyone else's good time.
Incidentally, it recently occured to me that well played evil is basically indistuingishable from poorly played unaligned, though it's more of a tangential thought than anything, so make of that what you will.
Why does evil have to automatically make you a ****?
A long history of people who were ****s anyway writing "evil" in their character's alignment box and then using "it's what my character would do" to justify wrecking everyone else's good time.
Incidentally, it recently occured to me that well played evil is basically indistuingishable from poorly played unaligned, though it's more of a tangential thought than anything, so make of that what you will.
No doubt you are correct. People use evil as an excuse to be jerks. I remember in 3rd Ed when I had a player that wanted to be evil I would ask "Are you Lawful Evil or are you Lawful Jack@ss?" The latter clearly wouldn't be allowed.
Snip
No doubt you are correct. People use evil as an excuse to be jerks. I remember in 3rd Ed when I had a player that wanted to be evil I would ask "Are you Lawful Evil or are you Lawful Jack@ss?" The latter clearly wouldn't be allowed.
You're both assuming that the player in question was evil because he wanted to ruin everyones day? I've played many evil characters and that's not why I do it. Evil characters add a little more flavor to the normal party. Granted, you have to talk to the other players and get to know their characters before you start doing anything evil, and even then your "evil" shouldn't effect fun. If the guy is saying "He's evil it'd be what he'd do" then he doesn't have a very broad imagination. There's a lot more to being evil then stealing from the rest of the party and trying to get your tpk count up.
IF you were to be evil I recommend that you talk to the other player, make sure that they wont freak on, and then tread lightly. If you can't do that then maybe you should just roll up that good guy.
My current party is made up of a CG Elf Wizard, CG Human Sorceror, LG Dwarf Cleric(benevolent DMPC), LG Human Fighter/Marshall, and a CE Halfling Rogue.
Changer the sorceror to a bard, add a female human rogue, and you have the Order of the Stick.
Actually, Belkar's a Ranger/Barbarian (it's easy to forget he isn't a Rogue, though), but, close enough.
For my own part, we've got an evil member in our party of predominately good members. He keeps his alignment activity somewhat under wraps, though. He has committed one cold-blooded murder, but managed to convince the party (and the detective who fingered him) that he had an alibi. Otherwise, his behavior is really more "selfish" than outright "evil". The other players (if not necessarily their characters) know that he'd probably sell them out if it served his purposes, but it hasn't, and at this point he has so much to lose from doing so that there's no worry of him double-crossing them (especially since they're looking for a cure to the terminal condition that he has).
Basically, he's Xellos from (the anime version of) The Slayers: his companions KNOW he's evil, but he's useful and generally amiable, so they put up with him.
...That's basically all I have.
You're both assuming that the player in question was evil because he wanted to ruin everyones day?
All dogs are animals but all animals are not dogs.
What I'm saying is that the stigmata is largely there because people who are ****s anyway abuse the evil alignment as a falsely presumed golden ticket to ****ery.
Snip
No doubt you are correct. People use evil as an excuse to be jerks. I remember in 3rd Ed when I had a player that wanted to be evil I would ask "Are you Lawful Evil or are you Lawful Jack@ss?" The latter clearly wouldn't be allowed.
You're both assuming that the player in question was evil because he wanted to ruin everyones day? I've played many evil characters and that's not why I do it. Evil characters add a little more flavor to the normal party. Granted, you have to talk to the other players and get to know their characters before you start doing anything evil, and even then your "evil" shouldn't effect fun. If the guy is saying "He's evil it'd be what he'd do" then he doesn't have a very broad imagination. There's a lot more to being evil then stealing from the rest of the party and trying to get your tpk count up.
IF you were to be evil I recommend that you talk to the other player, make sure that they wont freak on, and then tread lightly. If you can't do that then maybe you should just roll up that good guy.
A lot of people equate evil to ****ery which is why evil characters are usually not allowed in campaigns. It is wholely possible to be evil and still get along with the party and even the world, but people use it as an excuse to just be jerks. "Why'd you stab your mother and kick that puppy?!" "Because I'm evil!"Playing an evil-alignment campaign is fun.
...That's basically all I have.
YOU ALL SAW IT! THE ORPHANAGE ATTACKED ME FIRST!
All dogs are animals but all animals are not dogs.
What I'm saying is that the stigmata is largely there because people who are ****s anyway abuse the evil alignment as a falsely presumed golden ticket to ****ery.
I see where you're coming from. Why I suggested that people who want to be evil talk to the party/DM first. If you've been playing with them enough they should know if you're going to take it to far. In some cases ignorance plays more of a role then wanting to be an ass EX: Had a friend who rolled up an evil character to see what it was like, he played it like everything the character could do that was evil was what his character would do, this is not really how an alignment should be played, even the best good guy in the world would do ever good thing that he could think of.
I guess what I mean is if you play a evil character you need to be able to give it it's own flavor, not just "I kill the prisoner because I'm evil and I don't need him anymore".
Playing an evil-alignment campaign is fun.
...That's basically all I have.
YOU ALL SAW IT! THE ORPHANAGE ATTACKED ME FIRST!
What? Those kids had knives!
...But seriously, being in an all-evil campaign plays to its advantages. If I play evil, I generally go on the side of either Neutral or Chaotic. Lawful Evil is fun in certain campaigns, but I try to avoid it if possible.
It works out even better when you're an ex-paladin turn Blackguard.
Recently though I just removed alignment entirely. When the group swapped to 4e and most mechanical effects that targetted alignment were removed, I just took the stat out of the game. Follow your deity's precepts, and play a person. As long as Wheaton's Law is in effect it isn't a problem.
I just started in a 2nd edition game, playing a Lupin. DM decided the best time for my character to show up is the moment the rest of the party was fighting Werewolves. (Which look almost exactly like Lupins. Hence my characters hatred for them.)
The evil aligned character basically ignored me, and allowed me to take care of the werewolf attacking him.... Then the good aligned character blasts my CN character in the back of the head with magic missles, dropping me down to -8.
The real question isn't one of "evil" or "good" but of whether or not the characters are working at cross purposes. And the real question behind that question is whether or not the players are working at cross purposes.
If the evil characters are working along with the good ones to resolve the quests the party as a whole is working on, then it'll work.
It only really falls apart when one player is working against the input of another. It sucks to have your creative input nullified by the actions of someone who's supposed to be on your side in the general structure of the game.
Both gods could send down those divine messages of "kill the other palidin for good!" or any other list of things that could happen.
It add a taste to the role-playing since both sides have different idea's . In our campaign a friend of mind played a character who was going insane and made various attempts at summoning demons. At one point when i stumbled upon him for the 3rd time, and he was actually succeeding in his ritual, to stop him i had to kill him.
But i do like playing the evil guy one in a while! So many options.....lol
the rule of thumb has always been to let the burden of alignment fall on the players themselves. if you have the players themselves justify why they would be in a party, and why they would work with a group that is against the norm... then everything falls into place.
early on from second edition we had a party consisting of a human paladin and half elf druid who would rp quarrel, but eventually work out a civil agreement one way or another to justify the party.
later on in third edition our best example of evil players working with good players involved oriental adventures.
the only horror stories ive ever heard about evil chracters mucking up games have been in these forums.
Also: It's really hard to find someone to play evil properly and not just scrawl "OMG! Sereal Killur LOLOLOL" in large pink letters across their character sheet with crayon because they think's what evil is.
If the player can't explain how his character's opposing alignment will enhance the gameplay experience for everyone at the table, he shouldn't be allowed to play it. The first question a DM should fire at someone who wants to try something like that is, "how is that going to be fun for everyone else at the table?"
The game is built assuming that the PCs work together, and trust each other with their lives. The point of the game is for everyone to have a good time playing. I think it's permissible to compromise the former, but never the latter. If a player wants to tamper with that fundamental assumption that the characters can trust one another with their lives, then he takes on the responsibility for making it fun for everyone else, because he's taking away something that's essential to proper suspension of disbelief. He's reducing the distinction between his own character and the villains in the campaign to a metagame distinction.
The first, a half-elf rogue, had a nice childhood- her family loved her,she had friends and was loved by the community in general. then the orcs came. she was one of the only survivors, and her bent towards revenge corrupted her way of thinking, but she still valued friends and family greatly, and soprotected her party members with her life. The only issue they had was that she was a bit cruel about the way she acted sometimes. One thought provocing session was when she was detect evil-ed by a paladin while they were saving a priest of Pelor. the other players hadn't known I was evil beforehand, and this caused a schism. there was five including myself - two jumped to defend me, the others wanted my head on a platter. by the end of the session everybody was abit warrier around my character, but she had proved her worth as a friend and ally.
Being evil doesn't mean you don't play well with your party. it means you don't have any objections to darker paths to getting what you want
I've only ever come to blows with an overzealous Pally played by a snobby jerk who looked over my character sheet without my permission while I was getting the party food. The next time he detected evil instead of covering just the enemies he covered us too. Detect evil told him I was neutral. DM Allowed me to kill him and convert him into a zombie because of his meta gaming, and then we booted him from the group because he couldn't understand ownership.
It's not always the Evil players that make the outcomes inevitable, it's the good player who thinks that he's doing the right thing to have his character accidentaly on purpose find out that the evil one does evil things. Meta gaming in general doesn't ever turn out right, so people should really think about it before they do it.
She have various drawbacks, like being half crazy, totally unrespectful of common morals. She also have done thing that has freaked out the others, including killing - hundreds!- of innocent people to please Asmodeus, trying to convince them that joining the "dark side" was really a good deed and many others.
However, she also played well her cards. She was always well motivated to do what her have done, and has always had the patient to explain the others what she have seen in the future.
Here crippled mental status also helped avoiding some retaliation, while some other time she was plain right in her intention and the others had to agree that some course of action they had avoid for morale reason would have been really choosing the lesser evil - no matter how much brutal the suggestion was.
Basically, she's driven to her appointed role: to reach the ultimate pinnacle of sight, the Parable Ascension, and have no morale, no regret and no desire to save anyone along her path. Everything, herself included, is just part of the Great Illusion the Planes are made of.
As such, she's evil due to the action she does, not because she take pleasure - behind some little aesthetic touch - in evildoing. Evil is, to her, just a more practical method to reach her destiny.
Just to say, there was more attrition, due to the different approach to some solution, between Wyron and Karrick: the first is a true order guy, a wise tyrant. The other one is a self-appointed solo hero, unable to accept any authority.
As result, Wyron and the more methodical Serenia have often find on the same side against Karrick's instinctive choices.
Nicholas sometime act as a more practical and logical break to Serenia's often mad planes, advising Wyron but also sometime backing the witch when she propose things that result useful. As her part-time lover, he was also able to avoid her worst part to exceed.
In conclusion, I was very worried when Wyron token fully the path of the Shiny Lord by multiclassing into Paladin, and when Serenia descended totally to full evil by joining the Infernal Pact. But the -unexpected!- maturity of my players have smooth everything to a very entertaining series of interactions.
If the player can't explain how his character's opposing alignment will enhance the gameplay experience for everyone at the table, he shouldn't be allowed to play it. The first question a DM should fire at someone who wants to try something like that is, "how is that going to be fun for everyone else at the table?"
The game is built assuming that the PCs work together, and trust each other with their lives. The point of the game is for everyone to have a good time playing. I think it's permissible to compromise the former, but never the latter. If a player wants to tamper with that fundamental assumption that the characters can trust one another with their lives, then he takes on the responsibility for making it fun for everyone else, because he's taking away something that's essential to proper suspension of disbelief. He's reducing the distinction between his own character and the villains in the campaign to a metagame distinction.
It's worth noting that his being evil doesn't have to enhance the fun for the other players, as long as it doesn't hold them back. There are degrees of evil, to be sure.
An Orc who is fine with tolerating the others, and vice versa, because there is strength in numbers would be easier to explain than a genocidal Lich or something. You don't have to curb stomp Santa to be evil.
both make role playing predictable, boring, and trite.
Wanting to play the one evil character in a party is the sign of a personality disorder.
Which is magically fixed by writing "good" on his character sheet?
Personally I use a homebrew alignment system. There's only one alignment, and it's "No."
Actually, come to think of it, that character was Chaotic Neutral rather than evil...though since he was working for the BBEG he probably counts =P
Wanting to play the one evil character in a party is the sign of a personality disorder. The party is a captive audience for the person to be as malicious and antisocial as he wants in. There are no repercussions since everyone (else) wants to be playing a co-op game. He should be dropped from the game and encouraged to seek help to analyze why he feels the need to act out in such a way. Does he have trust issues accepting help from others? Does he harbor some resentment against one of the players he is acting out passive-aggresively?
No, you got it mixed up. Wanting to play F.A.T.A.L. is a sign of a personality disorder.
Playing evil is often just wanting to try something new, the same reason people run Evil campaigns. I think if a player interpreted me wanting to play a Gnoll who robbed a caravan as needing professional help, I'd probably laugh in their face. Sorry if that's rude, but let's not make mountains out of molehills.
I have only played Lawful Evil characters, which I feel I can identify with better then Chaotic Evil. This makes them easier to play. A lot of very great stuff happened, but right from the start I decided to try and screw the other players over. We had found some loot, and the other Evil Player was the one who could determine the value of items we found. He was Chaotic by the way. I persuaded him to give a lower value for an item we found then it was actually worth, and then after selling it split the difference between us. Naturally, the Good players were suspicious and they would not let us go to the shopkeep alone with the item. However, when they first decided to speak with the sherrif in the town they did not mind me staying behind. So I went to the shopkeep of the local blacksmith or whatever, and persuaded him to take part in our little scheme, splitting the difference three ways.
However, because of this, I went to the Sherrif on my own after the others had returned. The DM then decided that the Sherrif, who was Evil, recognized me for being Evil as well and explain to me the true mission. The mission he had given the other players just before was a cover up story. They were thinking they would get rid of some Evil, I knew that we were about to help in the extermination of a group of innocent people who happened to live in an area of land a syndicate that the sherrif worked for wanted for themselves. I am not sure how realistic it was for the Sherrif to tell me the truth there (or how normal it is for the DM to take one player apart and give him information that he doesn't share with the other players), but I went with it. I never told this to anyone, especially since I was also told that the one of our main objectives was to get an Artifact from some kind of Goodie-two shoes who was guarding it and about to give it to one of the enemies of the sherrif. The only objective was to prevent this from happening, what happened to the Artifact was of no concern. In other words, it was mine as far as I was concerned.
We were given a letter with some kind of blinding spell atatched to it which we were supposed to give to this guy who protected the artifact. The others thought it was a letter for him with information, I knew that after the blind spell two assasins who folowed us would attack this man. Now, other then the one time with the loot I did not really do anything to the other players, but then the Palladin got killed by a level drain from a vampire. He had an exotic build which gave him a lot of benefits but also negative two levels, so he was always at least two levels below the other players. This happened to be the Palladin, so the party member who was most likely to discover my alignment and who was most dangerous to me was out of the way, and it had nothing to do with me. Then the other good player I persuaded to try and sneak a peak when he gave the letter to this person, knowing it would blind him as well. My plan was to wait for the assassins to kill the guardian, and then make a run for it with the other Evil player (who I had told some of my plans) and the Artifact.
Unfortunately, it turned out that the Guardian was a disguised Red Dragon. Even though the two assasins did some major damage, we didn't stand a chance. I think we were al around level 6 or 7 at that point. To make a long story short, the true Neutral player fled, the other good player and the two assasins where killed by the dragon and the other Evil player and me fled into the castle. We found the artifact, managed to escape the castle and fled back to the North, hidden by some kind of magic item (I think it was a cloak) the other Evil player had. At this point we ended the campaign because it was the third day already and with two dead players and the remaining three split up and obviously not coming back together. Ironically, the Artifact turned out to be the Gold Dragon Orb.
Of course, the fact that this was only a short campaign made it easier for me to do some things I otherwise would not have done. The death of the Palladin also helped. It is definately possible to have Evil players and Good players in one party, but if it is a longer running campaign you have to know how to play one I think. I will admit I haven't played in a combined alignment party yet in a longer campaign. Either everyone is Good or everyone is Evil. Still, I think it would be interesting. And to be honest, even in a campaign where everyone is Evil we don't screw each other over, at least not a lot. It really is not neccesary, even when you are Evil.
I've had some odd instances before in past playing sessions due to some players choosing the evil alignment in an overall good aligned party. Mainly when it would come to taking prisoners or splitting gold and other similar events.
My question is, does anyone have any interesting stories or past problems such as myself when it came to situations like this? My initial thoughts on this problem is always the same. "If your character is evil and mine is good I wouldn't coencide with you in the first place let alone adventure with you."
Evil can mean a lot of things. That said, being evil <> violently psychopathic. It primarily means you look out for yourself first. Doing things out of pure altruism should be alien to you. You are always looking to improve your position.
That might mean cooperation with a good party in the service of your own interests. In many ways this means you'll be constantly doing calculations in your head, but to make it easier, deciding early on whether a specific character is an asset you value or an impediment will have to be done. If you can reason out the logic of why you will be willing to accompany these people, you've won the battle - for now. As time passes, it may be that you decide you no longer are served by their presence. That might mean you leave, or it might mean you decide to sacrifice the speed-bump.
A good character will of course not wish to travel with an evil one - but when there is no indicator of evil, it shouldn't even come up. It's a lot like religion. Do you wander around asking what religion someone is? Would you even know if one of your coworkers was a closet Satan worshiper? Obviously evil people roam freely among us now - just look at the pedophiles pretending to be upstanding keepers of morality in the Catholic Church. No one would have known but for their evil deeds.
Of course, if the party catches you slitting open an infant and sucking back its intestines like udon, you might have some potential for internal party conflict.
T
I've also had a demon character who had a very interesting father-daughter kind of relationship with what was essentially a chaotic neutral werewolf. He wasn't her actual father, he just took a liking to her.
Neither of those characters were from DnD, but they're still good examples of what I'm trying to show here. It's important to remember that just because a character is evil doesn't mean they can't have friends, loved ones, family they care for, etc. Evil doesn't necessarily mean inhuman (in the sense of humanity, not race). Sure you might put yourself before everyone else as Thomas said...but maybe you enjoy the company of person x, so you'd go out of your way to help them out. It's doubtful that you would sacrifice yourself for them, that would probably be a redemption of your evil ways, but simply helping them or even giving them something you could use isn't entirely out of the question.
I've always thought that a fantastic example of a Chaotic Evil character that wasn't the stereotypical baby-eating evil was Bishop from Neverwinter Nights 2. He wasn't a nice guy by any means, but he wouldn't slit your throat just to see you bleed either.
I've had some odd instances before in past playing sessions due to some players choosing the evil alignment in an overall good aligned party. Mainly when it would come to taking prisoners or splitting gold and other similar events.
My question is, does anyone have any interesting stories or past problems such as myself when it came to situations like this? My initial thoughts on this problem is always the same. "If your character is evil and mine is good I wouldn't coencide with you in the first place let alone adventure with you."
I play an evil Drow Rogue in a home game. I do not steal from the party, I do not take actions against the parties morals while making descisions in the parties presence. If we find treasure together we split it together evenly.
The party despite how good and noble they are, happen to be my friends. I trust they would save me, and so I save them.
If I happen to catch a prisoner alone, and get all the answers I need from them, sure I kill then. If I find treasure alone that one of my party members could use to better help me gain treasure or stay alive, I give it to them.
People that play eveil and then screw with the other players at the table are just disrupting the game, and being greedy or selfish. They truly have no desire to play a co-op game like D&D but to fuel their own selfish desires. Immature people play like that. Mature human beings play like I do.
No group would let a murdering, thieving self centered useless problm causer be part of there life and death group.
The only times that I have made exception, I make sure that the player knows that they will simply be a plot device, and to not get attached to the character
Like I said, that is just a personal preference base on my prefered game style, and how I was introduced to the game.
Led to conflict 2 days ago when we ran into the regular necromancer of the campaign, obviously using spells that hinted at him being able to kick us seven ways to sunday, and the extremist decides the best course of action is to smear him and go into "we iz gunna charge u!" mode.
So, as i seemed to be the only one intent on living another day, stepped in and cut a deal with the necromancer that we would pretend the mine was clear, so the local city would send "fodder" his way, and he would allow us to walk off.
Well, he accepted and we got to live, but it resulted in the extreme guy damning me as being evil (which i am, but none of them know for sure yet) and refusing to even hear my explanation, and almost led him to cutting my throat in my sleep....
Reasoning i gave to the rest of the group? That it was to make sure we got to live, that we werent ready to fight him, and that it would give us the chance to warn the others about his activities, and that of course we werent going to feed him civillians (admittedly, wouldnt have cared if they did get killed, they dont quite matter to me.)
Would i have held up my part of the deal? partly. As said didnt give a damn about others, but certainly intended all along to warn the local populace against him.
"but shendran, that isnt being very evil!" i hear one of you scream, yes you, down in the back *zaps the protester*
Reasoning? I have no interest in a necromancer running lose, i dont trust the guy one bit, and wouldnt like to feed him free troops. Just to explain how whle you may be evil, it doesnt mean you arent unreasonable, and of course nobody thinks of themselves as being evil. In my case my character just doesnt give a damn about others, but would never call herself evil. She just views the world as herself being the top priority.
Why travel with a bunch of do-gooders? because i actually am starting to like one of them (again, evil doesnt mean you cant have friends and cant feel positive emotions, many historical figures that were deemed "evil" often had even more passionate feelings for other people that "good" guys.) and because they are usefull tools, and it helps me get my goals more easily if im surrounded by a group of strong fighters. Especially as it shelters my identity.
There is no reason an evil character cannot cooperate with a good character, and no reason an evil character cant be reasonable, or cant like someone. Often evil is not a choise, but a question of nature. My character has had a rough time growing up and been shaped into not caring for others, she didnt wake up one day and decide "im evil".
Is Andrew Ryan in Bioshock evil? many would probably argue yes, i would argue that in his own eyes, he is just defending what is good against the evil altruism out to get him and everybody else.
Was Hitler evil? many would say yes, he himself would say that he was trying to remove evil from the world and make it a better place.
Or lets turn it on its head: The "extremist" guy from my group almost assasinated me in my sleep because i made a "deal" with a guy who would have killed us, refused to even hear me out, and purely based on that incident has decided that im evil to the core and should be destroyed.
Who is the most evil person in that situation? Me who just want to await the right time to attack, or him if he kills out of prejudice and disagreement?
Ironically, a lot of good characters are played as evil towards evil characters.
Of course, the necromancer contacted me later and offered to help me fufill my personal goals in exchange for doing some work on the side for him, still trying to decide on the answer *grin*