A History of Alignment in D&D Part IV

THE PROBLEMS OF PLAYING IN AN EVIL CAMPAIGN OR PLAYING EVIL CHARACTERS

by
James L.R. Beach - July of 1999

With so many wonderful alignments out there it is only natural some of your players will wish to play something other than a Good character or a Lawful character. Of course many will also want to play a Neutral character, but that is a double-edged sword in and of itself. It is, perhaps, frequently easiest to run a game for a neutral group of characters since they have no overly strong moral objections to a lot of situations, and this may actually better reflect the majority of humanity, which is perhaps a sad comment on humanity, but I believe it to be true.

*

Neutrality is frequently one of the most misunderstood alignments in the book, but this is the fault of the book itself. In fact, the Player's Hand Book actually suggest the neutral character will suddenly betray his or her companions, turning on them and attacking them, just upon their realization that the rest of the group is somehow making the power of Law (or Chaos ) OR Good (or Evil) felt a bit more than the neutral character thinks is appropriate. This is silly, to say the least. If you feel the written word in the book should not be tampered with or is somehow sacred doctrine and is, therefore, NEVER WRONG, then you may have a problem with what I'm saying, but for the most part anyone who plays a neutral character like that will probably ruin a game rather than enhance it. Playing neutral characters like that is unrealistic, not to mention stupid. People don't typically act that way, and though there will always be exceptions, it is not the RULE.

*

When characters of differing points of view find themselves in each other's company, unless they are evil and would think little or nothing of murdering or screwing over their associates, they will, more often than not, just disassociate themselves from these characters, perhaps simply leaving that group and finding other more suitable traveling companions. I realize this is hard to do sometimes as it may mean your PC will not fit in and thus be out of the game, but that is a game reason and not philosophically accepted as a reason for the PC to stick around. I mean, the PC isn't staying with the group so he or she can play a game. No, they would go find others more to their own liking and cast their lot with them. Thus, for the PC, it isn't like the alternative is nonexistence, but for the player, it may be nonexistence within the game. But that's another topic.

*

Truly Good people will refuse to travel with Evil characters. Lawful and Chaotic characters, however, may argue with one another an awful lot, but may still be friends, agreeing to disagree on how best to achieve their individual goals. This assumes, of course, they have other things in common. (Friends, family, acquaintances, a job, or even similar points of view on other topics). For example, the LG and CG characters can get along fine since they both agree, in principle, that Good is the major goal, only disagreeing on how best to achieve it. And this is hardly ever an issue when fighting a marauding monster or searching an abandoned ruin. In fact it probably won't even come up unless a PC brings it up, and when it is socially considered to be in bad taste to do this - or worse - it shouldn't happen too often. LN and CN characters can fit in with LG, NG, or CG characters, but since the neutral types have no overly strong feelings of good or evil, they may or may not find a reason to hang out together and may or may not get on each other's nerves. If they do annoy one another once too often, perhaps one day, having had enough of each other, they will part company, but they will almost certainly not try to kill each other.

*

NOTE: More than just in bad taste, openly questioning another's alignment or accusing them of evil without any offer of proof would be akin to calling one a cheat, a liar, or a murderer, essentially challenging them to a showdown that might, in many cultures, demand an immediate apology, or, failing that, a duel to the death. Suffice it to say, in many civilized cultures, right or wrong, the person making such accusations will quickly find themselves shunned, ostracized, or driven out of town or thrown out of a group, or worse, on the wrong side of the law, and those who continue to associate with such individuals may share similar fates. Thus, such open accusations rarely occur.

*

The nice thing about all this is that groups can frequently and simultaneously contain any and all alignments from the following list: LG, NG, CG, LN, NN, and CN, and still find a way to get along. There is no mandate or reason why, for example, LN and CN people must attack one another simply because they are diametrically opposed on an alignment grid. Such actions even assumes they have concrete knowledge this is the case, but in most situations they wouldn't know this with any great degree of certainty unless they had used magic to find out. Doing that sort of thing is such an invasion of privacy that without some exceptional reasons or justifications to do so, it is often an act of questionable alignment in and of itself. Furthermore, just because magic may reveal such things to an individual is not to say their word will necessarily be taken at face value. One could lie about what magic revealed to them, for example. Also, many may claim there is a kind of subjectively to such alignment designations, anyway. So while there normally may be some friction between characters, just like in real life, this hardly ever breaks into open murderous attempts to kill one another. Before it gets that bad, people will typically part company.

*

As for the Neutral character, when played in the way that I find to be a more realistic approach to the neutral alignment, they will frequently go with the flow. Perhaps having Law and Chaos represented in the group will even make the group a better home for them. The neutral character may even be a calming effect between the two points of view, bridging the gap between them and making it possible for greater tolerance. And if it isn't the case that Law and Chaos are both represented in the group, the neutral character may play devil's advocate and express a more Chaotic/Lawful view point, not so much because they agree with it, but rather because they can see another side to the story that the Lawful/Chaotic character may be missing (they may even express evil points of view at times, but the mere suggestion of evil may upset some so much that the neutral character often quickly learns this practice may be better left alone).

*

The neutral character would, however, have no great objection in doing what the majority of the group wishes. In the great scheme of things, there are other groups in the world who will balance things out, making the universe well balanced between Law and Chaos OR Good and Evil, always having both since you can't have one without the other. To think the very balance of the universe or even the world is somehow up to them is pretty arrogant, and perhaps even insane. And I, for one, will not treat the true neutral alignment as a sort of insanity, even if the book almost implies this to be the case.

*

Thus, if you can play the neutral character in a way many feel to be more realistic, and since the six aforementioned alignments can and do frequently get along with one another, only the evil characters may cause such a problem that they need to be given much further consideration. And that is what I will do now.

*

Playing Evil

*

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the main problem with playing evil characters is that it is often not FUN to treat your friends and fellow players as evil people probably would treat one another. Oh, you may enjoy it for a brief time, but you can almost be certain another player isn't having too much fun when your character steals from them, bullies them, belittles them, subjugates them, oppresses them, hurts them, or even kills them. Yet when playing an evil character properly, this will most likely eventually happen. All that is required is a reason why the evil character might benefit, even slightly, from another character's demise or loss. No consideration of what is FAIR will have any particular appeal to the evil character. Unfortunately - or fortunately, as the case may be - most of us play games to have fun, and we can usually only do this if we treat each other fairly. Fair play is so important that without it, the game will probably fail.

*

Now I know that from a roleplaying philosophical point of view we may wish to express as many aspects of our existence in the game that we can, and this would include our evil tendencies, and even pure evil from time to time. It may, in fact, be the only way we can ever express some of our more antisocial thoughts and feelings while still having little in the way of consequences in the real world. Unfortunately, there are some consequences, even if they may only be game related and concern only your fellow players.

*

Please don't misunderstand me. It is possible to play evil characters, but the danger of turning a fun, social game into something which resembles an unpleasant experience is always present and should be guarded against. Therefore, the only two ways that I have found to play an evil character that may still make the game fun are:

*

A.) Everyone plays evil characters (or neutral ones who do not object to evil and even occasionally may do evil things). This way all players know what is gong on, what they can expect (evil), and will not feel too badly if another PC treats them unfairly, as it is expected. They can even retaliate, unfettered by any moral ambiguity as to such retaliatory actions. More often than not, however, people are unhappy when they do not get what they expect out of a situation (whether they had ample cause to realistically expect it or not isn't important). If they do not get what they expected, they are usually disappointed and unhappy with the results. So when they have ample reason to expect evil, it may not be so hard to live with when it happens.

*

However, there will come a time when the characters will no longer be able to trust one another (it may even start out that way). And with the realization they can be killed at any moment by the more powerful PCs, the less powerful PCs will usually desert at the first opportunity when they see they will not be able to balance the scales of power any time soon. Few adventurers willingly play toadies (unless they have ulterior motives ;-) and/or long range plans, ha ha). So when it becomes a question of who will get the dagger in the back first, like rats deserting a sinking ship, these evil groups do not last very long.

*

Most exceptions to the above paragraph usually take the form of a Lawful Evil group. Within such a power structure, a strong leader (either strength of personal character or strength of position backed by even more powerful NPCs) can usually hold the group together. Naturally, if they abuse their underlings (who are the other PCs) this will not work well, but treating one's underlings fairly does not necessarily mean "good" but may be more of a reflection of "law," intelligence, or wisdom. A power structure with a sense of security in it (due to strong leadership, fair treatment, and "rights" under the law) can be very evil and very, very successful.

*

Unfortunately, though the LE structure works best for the evil group, it may also work best for the leader of the group. This means, of course, the best player(s), the most powerful character(s), etc. may be calling the shots and therefore greatly enjoy the game. An underling, especially if he's treated as less than an equal, may not like playing their part as much. Jealousy, envy, pride, and a few more considerations may be likened to dry rot on a fairly stable LE structure. If the power structure and/or power dynamic of the group ever changes, look out. When the hierarchy is adjusted, if you were the leader before, you may find the new leader needs to adjust you, and this may not be too fun.

*

Still, it is possible to play an evil group for a time, and probably a LE group for an even longer period of time before it falls apart. And as this may not even happen before the game disbands anyway, you may wish to give it a try and find yourself in a very fun game while it last.

*

And, of course, if the players inject the artificial "FAIRNESS" the game demands into the evil group (i.e., the PCs treat one another with kindness, fairness, and/or courtesy and loyalty, something unlikely in the character of the evil PC), then the game may last a long time, but this is usually due to the unrealistic way the players are playing their evil characters. If the friendship between the players is somehow translated to the PCs, many may think they have a great game there that just happens to be an evil campaign, but it smacks of an unrealistic quality more often than not. True, there may be compelling emotional reasons why the evil PCs are good to one another and only evil to outsiders, but those sorts of strong emotional attachments aren't common in most games, or between most PCs. Also, as mentioned, there may be Lawful reasons why such a group dynamic may last, but I believe its days are also numbered.

*

B.) The other way one may play an evil character without harming the fun in the game is when the evil PC is playing covertly within the group. They may be evil, but if they can successfully hide this fact, adventuring with an otherwise non-evil group may provide the perfect cover and many opportunities for years to come. Naturally, once again, this isn't going to happen if you think of Evil as a sort of compulsive behavior that attacks Good on sight. People who play like this somehow equate Evil with Stupidity, and this is not the case. Nor is it likely to happen if the DM allows their players to throw around "Detect Evil" and "Know Alignment" spells whenever a PC feels like it. If that level of disrespect for another person's privacy runs rampant in the game (paladins notwithstanding), only magical methods will still make this option of "covert evil" possible by magically concealing the evil character's alignment from prying eyes.

*

For my own sensibilities, I have taken such spells and abilities out of my game and replaced them with spells and abilities that are a sort of "Detect Enemy." They still function in the normal regards to other planar creatures, but unless the evil character is planning on harming the PC or the PC's immediate friends or acquaintances, they will not register as an enemy, thus keeping their alignment a secret. I have done this as I have found many players too frequently attempt to abuse the alignment system. Yet, rather than finding the alignment system unrealistic or worthless, I keep it since it does have value. I have just put a stop to many players abusing it with the tools commonly used to abuse it. Thus, on my world, these spells do not exist. Even a holy warrior (aka a lawful good paladin) has "Detect Enemy" as a natural ability rather than "Detect Evil."This keeps the useful alignment system while helping to prevent its misuse.

*

By playing an evil character covertly within an otherwise non-evil group, the Evil PC (hence EPC), will be able to go with the flow (even apparently doing some "Good" things). And why not? If the party trashes some force of evil, it is no skin off the EPC's nose. That's one of the differences between good and evil. A Good character couldn't easily allow evil to happen to others just because it may happen to benefit them personally. An EPC, on the other hand, could allow Evil to be hampered and even destroyed as long as it isn't them or anyone they personally care about.

*

Of course, playing evil covertly is simply usually too hard when the other players know about it (unless each and everyone of them are exceptional roleplayers and can always resist the temptation to use their player information as character information - that is, mixing IC and OOC information). Thus, the DM and the player of the EPC usually must both conspire to allow the EPC in the game. And this will work as long as the EPC deliberately checks themselves from endangering their cover story by treating other members of the group in a less than friendly fashion. Sure, it's all an act to them, but if they are smart enough to do it, they can pull it off, with the motivation of maintaining cover and a home, of sorts, within a group that will probably protect them as well as provide profitable opportunities - as long as they remain ignorant of his or her true nature, that is.

*

The EPC may, however, often do things to NPCs on the sly that might reflect their true feelings. Sneaking back and killing farmer Brown for insulting him earlier, for example, perhaps taking his money, raping and killing his daughter who witnessed the murder, or some other evil actions for whatever reason the EPC thinks fit all might happen. It is harder to play this on the sly, but it can be done - with secret notes passed to the DM, or later, retroactively, for example. The EPC's only concern is not that he or she is doing evil, but only that they must be careful not to get caught by the other PCs. (And this is realistic, since evil people do actually do this, covering up and hiding their actions from most people).

*

However, it may come to pass that the EPC will actually wish to hurt or kill one of their traveling companions. In fact, it's almost inevitable if they play the evil alignment properly. There is no alignment objection for them doing this, and such an action may irreparably harm a game and the fun of the game, so look out.

*

NOTE: Unfortunately, there often will come a time when it's simply too good not to pull up stakes and blow town, since, unlike the player who can't always find a new game, the EPC can usually find a fresh group of ignorant adventurers. This is particularly true when you consider how easily the EPC may be able to kill several high-level party members, due to their trust, and quickly depart with their incredibly expensive belongings, such as many magic items, gems, or jewelry. All too often, from a cost analysis point of view, people are worth more dead than alive, and evil people aren't afraid to take advantage of this fact. So look out should your PC be worth more dead than alive. It's usually only the fact the EPC will be out of the game that stays their hand, and this is wholly unrealistic roleplaying. The EPC should not, after all, stick with the group solely because they'd be out of the game if they did otherwise. That's nonsense. Alas, this happens all too frequently anyway. Just note that it's not good roleplaying, or playing an evil PC properly, far more often than not.

*

NOTE: Evil people often hide many of their questionable actions, not because they feel they are evil or the actions are truly wrong, but because they feel others will not understand them, are too stupid to understand them, are too naïve or cowardly to take such bold and decisive actions, or for many other similar rationalizations or justifications, they feel it's better to conceal such actions. Also, quite often such actions are against the law, but the evil characters probably feel the laws are wrong or badly written or stupid or clearly benefit the wrong sorts of people, and the problem lies with the idiotic laws, and not with their actions. The point is, evil people frequently don't think of themselves as evil people, but that is really a whole other topic.

*

Ultimately, playing an EPC (other than the two ways mentioned above) too often results in an innocent PC being the target of evil actions, finding such things unfair and definitely not fun. And when the player of the EPC takes a stand and defends his or her roleplaying of the EPC as right, proper, or something that his or her evil PC would do, they are missing the point. Sure, they played Evil well, but they didn't play the game well. The game is meant for all to have fun, and they have let another player down. And if this doesn't bother them in the slightest, perhaps they are not just PLAYING evil ;-)