How to Handle Evil PCs at the RPG Table!

[@Daredhnu]

Playing the odd evil one-shot can be cathartic, I've only seen an evil campaign work once and we weren't that evil, more a group of dickbags who didn't particularly care about collateral damage and were ruthless towards anyone who got in our way.

[@fleetcenturion]

When dealing with mixed alignments, the surest way to unite a party is to pit them against slavers. Suddenly, the lawful good paladin, and the chaotic evil assassin have a common cause, and no matter how gruesome the fate of the BBEGs, no one ever loses sleep over it. If Hasbro execs feel uncomfortable at the mere mention of slavery, then I'd wager they've made a few questionable business trips to Thailand.

[@KrugusRuneblade]

As a "ForeverGM" I run with all actions have consequences. Good, bad, in-between. Being evil gives all the instant rewards but those consequences for those acts add up fast and before long, the players could become the BBEG of the game world! It can make for a fun campaign but you have to have the right people for it to work.

[@calvanoni5443]

It really is the group of players & their quality.

[@briansmaller7443]

I once played a 1e AD&D game where all the PCs were evil. The entire game was a series of quests to gather together a bunch of artifacts to bring about the return of an evil god and we were to be his satraps running the world yadda yadda yadda. We worked together invading good temples, corrupting officials and generally being despicable. When we got to the very last artifact - a sword of wondrous power (and evil) our party fell to pieces in an orgy of violence as we all tried to gain the sword and become all powerful. When the dust settled there was one PC left and we all sat there somewhat stunned. Two years real time playing almost every week and all over in an hour of play time. It was brilliant. Being an evil PC can work - we were not psycho spree killers - we had a plan for world domination.,

[@DiversityDragons]

Yes, I had one player who wanted to be a LE Wizard. But he asdured me I'd barely know and he was right. He got along with the group just fine. He didn't cause any mayhem, but was just kind of sneakily selfish.

[@Tora58]

This game soulnds low key amazing, not going to lie.

[@karatachi69]

Had a similar run as a DM with that theme. But that artifact sword to pit you all against each other? *mwah!* Chef's kiss!

[@Pantherrrr]

"DENTAL PLAN!" is going to be fricking stuck in my head all day now

[@steelmongoose4956]

If the game world has enough internal logic, stupid evil behavior should take care of itself.

[@DiversityDragons]

Exactly!

[@Thagomizer]

Gygax says as much in the DMG, even though he never wrote a rule that disallowed evil PCs.

[@killgriffinnow]

JRR Tolkien in a nutshell

[@KopperNeoman]

Stupid good does the same. Want to free the slaves in the evil republic? Good luck escaping the guards.

[@karatachi69]

My number 1 rule! "There will be consequences."

[@surlyunicorn9461]

The best kind of evil at the table is the character that unknowingly but steadily drifts from the path of good. That character that reacts to a wrong of some sort and starts out doing the right thing but then begins to be quietly pulled down into the shadows by their antagonist that uses their drive to do good to throw them off balance. It doesn’t happen often in my experience but it’s great when the DM is sitting quietly noting as you slip away into neutrality and then into darkness while all the while you have no idea you’ve slowly become what you hated. Great stuff.

[@DiversityDragons]

For sure!

[@karatachi69]

Something about "be careful not to become the monster you're hunting"?

[@surlyunicorn9461]

@@karatachi69 “He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." - Nietzsche At least it’s attributed to him. Could have been Popeye the Sailor. You never know with researching quotes online. lol

[@therealvector8955]

I'll say it: Chaotic Neutral has always been the go to alignment for problem players. :P

[@haveswordwilltravel]

You mean “Chaotic Stupid”?

[@karatachi69]

Also, "Loner" characters. Those edgy boys annoy me. It's a cooperative game, and these dunces run off on their own to try and be some tragic anti-hero. Add Chaotic Neutral in the mix and it's a formula for a bad campaign. I hate DMing those kinds.

[@Venomm12]

I played a wizard who started as Lawful Evil and was an aspiring necromancer. His evil came from a desire for power; but did his best to work within the rules of the lands he traveled. He saw the adventuring life as a excuse to test the magic he used. Those are enemies of the "greater good", making them expendable test subjects. Mind you I did shy away from anything that involved kids, it was just something as a group we decided is too much.

[@DJWidget]

If I play evil, I typically go lawful. I will do some despicable things, but I have standards and I'm not looking for wanton destruction.

[@LordOz3]

Even in the few "bad guys" campaigns, the PCs have been more anti-heroes than evil. I've found about the only line they quickly cross is torture for information. Occasionally they'll off a prisoner, but only if the subject is a scumbag. One of the things they learn is expect the same treatment they dish out. I also played in a short-lived super-villains campaign - but the GM was disappointed because we wouldn't commit the kind of crimes likely to attract attention, especially from super heroes, but would engage in political and financial scheming to get what we want.

[@dungeondumbo]

One of our DM’s had enough evil oozing through his gaming style for everybody in our gaming group 😂

[@chrisg1598]

On the matter of slavery, if you're playing in a setting based on the ancient world, slavery was just a fact of life. My current campaign has a fantasy version of ancient Egypt and when the characters travel there, they will see slaves and slave markets. If they are brought before Pharaoh, he's going to have slaves waiting on him. Among TSR's historical settings produced during 2E is the Glory of Rome, which acknowledged the institution of slavery and even discusses pc's starting out as slaves. There's no reason slavery needs to be a taboo topic. The people pushing that notion are, as you say, the ones pretending slavery was invented by the United States.

[@KopperNeoman]

And pretending it wasn't the Christian English that first posited the notion that it was bad.

[@sketchasaurrex4087]

Played a few evil adventures. The party rarely spared a person and only did so when it personally benefitted the individual. Short run adventures like that are fun because they're different.

[@APL314159265]

My players wanted to play evil characters so I created a city based game for them, after a short time they complained about how it was going. They didn't that they were the monsters. I don't allow characters to start out evil, but enjoy watching them drift down into the morass. I give them warnings as they slip, but will not stop them.

[@Darklight689]

I’ve run evil campaigns and played evil characters. It’s actually a lot of fun but usually with a few caveats. The first being is you need a goal, a purpose. Good guys generally respond to taking down evil, now the roles are reversed and evil needs something they want. A vampire party trying to survive would be an evil game, so would most games set in 40k or warhammer the old world as usually players fight on the side of law, but not necessarily good. A player who is a Roman tribune overseeing a campaign for slaves and land would also be evil. So have a goal in mind. Especially true for evil PCs in non evil parties. I had an evil diviner wizard whose whole schtick is he was a spy. He was damn evil, because to him the ends justified the means. He would always be very careful not to take things too far so he didn’t get aggro from the party. He wouldn’t hesitate to arrange an accident, or force his way into someone’s mind using a mixture of torture to break them and magic gather information. And that’s the last thing, just because your characters moral compass points south, doesn’t mean you have to play a psycho killer. You can easily be a conquerer, or unscrupulous assassin or mercenary, a witch hunter or some kind of predator. Black company comes to mind as well, they’ll do anything for coin even if it’s distasteful. They won’t enjoy it, and just carried out what they were hired to do

[@pISSUMTREE]

I normaly do not encourage players in my game to choose "evil" characters. Games with dark natured characters always seem to fizzle out . I very much prefer the "heroes" trope.

[@solomani5959]

So the first time this happened was the 80s. I asked for his character sheet and ripped it up in front of him. Defiantly heavy handed but in my defense I was a kid and the standard agreement at my games so that the PCs are heroes. No evil PCs. That incident had became an urban legend at my table so never ever had the problem again. My more moderated approach these days is in-game pushback. You kill the militia? The king sends a hit squad to kill you. I always remind my players there is always someone stronger than you.

[@karatachi69]

LOVE this! The last thing I want to DM is Grand Theft Auto: Swords & Sorcery with would-be sociopaths. Last time I ripped up a character sheet it was because the dude became violent out-of-game, and then I threw him out of my house. People who prefer to play evil are just built different. This isn't therapy to get out some personal derangement issues, it's a fun game for everyone.

[@gendor5199]

When I GM'd a campaign of Symbaroum (A rather dark setting), things got to a point for me when the Players decided that a merchant who had lead them into an ambush and tried to kill them was to be captured (reasonable), pressed for information (Makes sense) and instantly water torutured the moment he started cursing at them. That was the moment when I started losing my creativity I think, as after that I just played some pre-existing stuff, and I never came back from it.

[@Akeche]

There's one player in my friend group who has a problem with doling out torture casually with his "Chaotic Good" characters. I think given the pattern it's possible he just really hates bandits. But the scenario that stands out the most is when the party was interrogating a bandit leader that had allied his group with a cult to help strengthen influence in the untamed wilds above the dungeon. Overall he was honest, but despite this the aforementioned player said his barbarian kept pulling his arm into more and more of an uncomfortable position. When this bandit lord made a snarky quip, he said he pushed hard enough to break his arm. After that I had him start telling lies.

[@karatachi69]

Awesome! I like that. Torcher has been proven to yield false-positives, and misinformation. And, works great to limit it in our games.

[@opaqued2039]

I have what I think is a unique type of evil player in the group I run games for. I'd be curious to know if other GMs have this sort of player. This player does not make evil characters, but he allows his characters to be turned to the dark side (almost always joining the evil NPCs or being influenced by them). If he was Luke, he'd have joined Darth Vader in Empire. He always has some sort of weird logic or character logic as to why he joins the dark side, and it usually happens in approximately 60% of the campaigns. I actually tell him to metagame and not join the bad guys.

[@zacharyhawley1693]

Evil pcs ironically require far more rp experience. As long as the table knows that the evil is directed at everyone not the party. 😅

[@dukejaywalker5858]

This perfectly articulates what I've been thinking the whole time. I expect the players to be the "good guys" and "heroes" in my game, but I don't mind if they push the boundaries. I trust them not to push more than we're all comfortable with. And should some players want to push too far, then our play-styles don't match, and we don't have to play together anymore. But that has never happened in any of my games.

[@satturnine7320]

There’s so much to say on this that you should do a livestream on it…and if you do, bring up what kind of a DM Carl Jung would make

[@tcschenks]

If the character turns evil by a curse or some such I will take him or her aside and suggest they keep playing themselves as normal until the appropriate evil situation comes up. Or they can do it covertly, like a doppelgänger. Otherwise I ran a “free will” evil campaign one summer and I will never do it again. I can handle Chaotic Neutral (Conan) but no evil PCs.

[@karatachi69]

Ditto, you learn a ton about your players when they play evil. And not good things.

[@Kill2Hard101]

This was a great video DD. I have encountered the torture situation in my games. I do think it's an evil act to anyone with a good alignment even when find for good reasons. This is exactly why paladins get 'circle of truth'.

[@Charlotte_WilliamsFYTG]

Most people don't really know how to play a Chaotic Neutral character so they just kinda use it as an excuse to be a jerk.

[@autisticallyaccurate]

Bravo, Double D! Well Done! Accurate Approved!

[@dukegunnison239]

I like to roll up a screeching harpy character that casts mass suggestion, forcing all the NPCs to use my proper pronouns. Good times!

[@RIVERSRPGChannel]

Oh I remember that book I use stuff like this to learn how to make good BBEG. Yes our party has tortured bad guys. Our group now is trying to free slaves

[@Jomit427]

They're all evil... every time...

[@DiversityDragons]

😄

[@calvanoni5443]

I have no limit, but I have my Staff of the Magi with brush attachment & Nystuls Magic Pigments! 😉

[@DiversityDragons]

😄😄😄

[@darkknightofhibernia4815]

At first, I thought you meant "Turn," as in, "Turn Undead"

[@DiversityDragons]

😄

[@TheOGGMsAdventures]

don't care what they do outside of the city, go ahead and be evil. Less work for me, just leave my Villigers alone. I ran 2 very successful super villain games and they were a blast. CN characters are far eviller than any evil character and 90% of every horrible thing that ever happened in my game was because of CN

[@DiscoBarbarian]

Pretty solid analysis DD... being the bad guy can be fun, but it gets old quickly. if you have a player that is really really set on playing the bad guy.... maybe suggest they run for a little.

[@cobinizor]

In a world with divination magic and charm spells, torture for information is a choice that is feasible only if the party is without spellcasters and spells for sale are too expensive. As for slavery, while the institution is off putting, the people involved in the industry are not necessarily evil. For a character in such a world, slavery has been an institution for his whole life. Jobs for commoners are not growing on trees. It's just the way it is. No evil required. Aristotle, while not a big fan of slavery, thought it was just natural.

[@karatachi69]

Most my campaigns are very low magic, so it's not something they could just use outright. Also, to add to your slavery point, ancient Hebrew only kept slaves for 7 years, then released them with full debts paid. Not all slave master's were "Evil" per se, and some slaves even preferred to remain with the family as a household servant instead. I think modern understanding of slavery is overly simplified. Aristotle knew what he was talking about - the strong will always enslave the weak in certain societies.

[@DorsonKieffer]

A good old-school dungeon crawl doesn't care what alignment you are.

[@sirellyn]

Nowadays at my table, evil NPCs are just woke. It's a very easy template they gave us. And honestly it fits every element of megalomaniac you can think of.

[@karatachi69]

No doubt. I threw in a vile succubus in my campaign recently that forced lesser creatures to "respect it's pronouns!" Good for a laugh, and the players knew what I mean by "A succubus can technically be any gender..." Another one was a noble lady that forced people to donate to the poor with virtue signaling and moral grand standing (only to pocket 99% of it for "Administrative costs").

[@ryannilsson7955]

I find the idea of an evil PC party to be very uninteresting. Players acting in an entirely selfish way without adherence to a moral code seems tiresome as the PCs will always stoop to the easiest path and avoid challenge which can make up the stuff of real adventure. The original Star Wars movie was such a great adventure because it had clear archetypes of good and evil and triumph in the face of a tremendous, planet-killing menace. Sure, there was a colorful Han Solo character, but even this self-interested person saw the value of aligning himself with the cause to overcome the great evil. Think of how boring Star Wars would have been if it was just space pirates making raids, pillaging, committing atrocities for the sake of selfishness, and then moving on and doing the same thing over and over. I can see how players might get some short term pleasure from that style of play, but I don’t see it creating an enduring, endearing attachment to the campaign and its story. I also wonder about the psychological effect it has on a person to willfully play out the fantasy of being a completely depraved wretch without any aim or guidance. Now it’s not just boring, it’s something I’m uncomfortable encouraging my kids to do. I wouldn’t want to be involved in a campaign where the players were of a chaotic alignment. Not for me.

[@wichaden]

Some spells already break that stupidity in rulers, just cast black tentacle i'm dare to discribe and don't sound,,,, disturbing

[@vladtheinhailer1428]

Playing 'evil' characters are ok if the whole party buys into it, but only when it's 'cartoonish' evil. Role Playing Rape, Torture and murder of Innocents (no degeneracy) is F'd up and no thanks. My comfy zone would be 80's Cartoon Villainy levels of Evil. Anything more than that is Emo Goth emotionally damaged gamer territory which fan f'off to the doctors office and stay outa my game table.

[@karatachi69]

Venger is a great example of 80s cartoon villain!

[@crapphone7744]

Even in a game, I find torture beyond what I am willing to role play. Ugh.

[@mcdoogle_robotman]

I've only seen "That Guy" do this these kind of things, I have no interest in playing a game with people who do evil or despicable things under the gise of ""hurr during im only doing what my character would do"" or some other tripe without reason then get upset when they get punished for what they did, I just find it fking boring or worthless when it's always murder hoboing by smooth brains.

[@karatachi69]

Absolutely, there should always be consequences for villainy and stupid behavior - or both! LOL

[@thatsnotoneofmeatsmanyuses1970]

There is a school of thought that most people are evil, and only the threat of consequences keeps them within the boundaries of civil society. This notion (if accurate), would mean that under most circumstances of the adventure evil characters might not behave all that differently than good. It is all down to motivation and justification .

[@haveswordwilltravel]

Double D, I am glad to see a video anout playing the game, instead of a video about the stupid shyt that certain game writers are doing.

[@DiversityDragons]

I do try to balance them.

[@princealiaps3751]

Ah Alignment! A ridiculous premise that behaviours can be boiled down to nine types. I've never liked or agreed with it despite playing a tonne of D&D from 2nd up to 3rd {when I checked out of D&D }. The arguments caused by alignment brought sessions to a screeching halt. IMO the extremes were easy to play but probably caused the most friction. Players should have a sensible realistic handle on their character's morality within the context of the setting, upbringing etc. Consequences of morality should be presented by the other facets of society e.g the murder hobos shouldn't last long at all.

[@therealvector8955]

I've always preferred consequences over alignment. You know, just like the real world.

[@miscprojects9662]

You keep saying “decent people” like it’s a thing.

[@karatachi69]

Because it is.