Monday, November 27, 2023

In Defense of Evil Characters

Having last week come to the defense of the murderhobo, I thought I'd go one step further this week by doing something similar for outright evil characters. That's because, for as long as I've played Dungeons & Dragons, I've never considered the possibility of playing such characters illegitimate. None of the editions of the game I encountered in the first few years after I entered the hobby – in order: Holmes Basic, AD&D, or Moldvay Basic – forbids characters from being evil (though the matter is a little complicated in the latter case, since there is no explicitly "evil" alignment). Indeed, all three versions of the game are quite clear that a player character can be of any alignment, including evil ones. 

Likewise, Holmes states that at least one class – thieves – are "not truly good," while AD&D goes further, claiming that "most thieves tend toward evil." Assassins engage in an activity that Gary Gygax memorably described as "the antithesis of weal," hence their outright restriction to evil alignment. Monks have a very limited range of alignments, but Lawful Evil is among them. Bards are almost as restricted in their alignment options, yet they too can be evil. Only druids, paladins, and rangers are forbidden from being evil by the rules, suggesting that the possibility of a player choosing to play an evil cleric or fighter is in no way beyond the pale. 

Of course, it's one thing to see the possibility of evil characters as legitimate and another to see it as desirable. In the early days, I tended to transfer Moldvay's perspective about Chaotic characters to evil ones more broadly: they don't play well with others. For the most part, my friends shared this perspective. I cannot recall anyone of my neighborhood buddies wanting to play an evil character, let alone actually doing so. Like me, they'd come to D&D as relatively innocent boys who looked to the heroes of mythology and literature for inspiration in generating our earliest characters.  Few, if any, of these characters were evil either in thought or deed and our own characters reflected this.

However, as I mentioned in my post about murderhobos, a number of the protagonists of the pulp fantasy stories that served as the inspiration of Gary Gygax in his personal conception of the game were, at best, morally ambiguous and, in a few cases, evil by the standards of D&D's alignment system. That this is the case is made unmistakable in, for example, the write-up of Elric in Deities & Demigods, which judges him Chaotic Evil in alignment. One can certainly argue the fine details of that or similar judgments, but there's no denying that there's a strong tradition of pulp fantasy characters whose exploits include a lot of morally dubious actions.

Beyond that, one need only take a look at the play of the earliest Dungeons & Dragons campaigns. Blackmoor, the birthplace of D&D, featured at least one significant evil player character – Sir Fang, a fighter-turned-vampire whose depredations proved so frightful to the other characters in that campaign that the cleric class was created to stand against him. Meanwhile, one of the most successful characters in Gygax's Greyhawk campaign was Robilar, played by Rob Kuntz. Robilar was not unique in this regard. A quick look at The Rogues Gallery reveals a number of evil-aligned player characters among TSR's writers and designers. If you look at the pregenerated characters for use with modules like Expedition to the Barrier Peaks and Dwellers of the Forbidden City, you'll find several also have evil alignments.

The weight of all this evidence was still insufficient to turn me into a defender of evil characters, except in the narrowest sense. Yes, the rules allow for evil characters, but that didn't mean I had to like it. What ultimately changed my mind was when, many years after I first played D&D, I participated in several sessions that featured an evil character. He was a Neutral Evil psionicist/thief – this was in the days of 2e – and he made himself very useful to his companions by both his skills and his knowledge. I never completely trusted him, but there was no denying that he filled a niche in the party and that his presence helped us succeed when we might otherwise have not. It helped, too, that he was well roleplayed as a charming, if not at all trustworthy, rascal. 

Ultimately, that's what convinced me that an evil character could be fun: good roleplaying. Here was a completely disreputable character, a liar and a cheat, whose actions were always self-interested – but he was played so well and so enjoyably that I almost forgot he was evil. Eventually, the character had the opportunity to betray his comrades to his benefit and he took it. The betrayal left us in a bit of a bind and, while my character was certainly angry, I was not. The character acted as he ought to have, given his alignment. If anyone is to be blamed, it's the rest of us for taking on such a character, knowing as we did that he was evil. But, as I said, he was charming, so fun, that we let our guard down and paid the price for it.

That may seem an odd defense of evil characters. From my perspective, though, it's the strongest one I can offer: sometimes it's fun. Roleplaying games are a form of escapism, something I consider very important, especially nowadays. Having a creative outlet for our baser instincts is, in my opinion, just as vital as having one where we can behave heroically. Sometimes we want to be Galahad and sometimes we want to be Cugel the Clever. I don't see either one as inherently better than the other. While my preference remains for less morally compromised characters, I can easily see the fun in evil characters. Arguably, many of the characters in my House of Worms campaign would be considered evil in D&D terms, so it's not as if the playstyle is completely outside my taste. I've also long harbored a desire to a referee a D&D campaign in which all the characters are members of a Thieves' Guild. In such a campaign, I suspect the vast majority of the characters would be evil, or at least non-good.

I'd love to know of your experiences playing or playing with evil characters. Is it enjoyable? Is it something you'd recommend? What are the advantages and drawbacks of this kind of game? It's a topic that I think deserves greater examination.

21 comments:

  1. My experience is similar to yours - evil characters can be fun in the right group. In one of my current campaigns, one of the fighters *might* be evil. Twice he has been in position to betray the party to his great profit. He has resisted temptation both times, and his clear greed and questionable loyalties have made the game all the more enjoyable. As the DM in those moments, it's fun being in as much suspense as the players.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think you hit a chord with the point about ROLEPLAYING. Some players do it poorly. Some are great to play with even when the character is annoying or doing annoying things. Sometimes a generic neutral/good/lawful character is easier to tolerate from an unskilled roleplayer. An evil or chaotic character run by a pest is a disaster waiting to happen.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I've seen evil characters played,, and played them myself once or twice, in non-disruptive ways.
    It requires a degree of maturity on the player's side, and I rhink NE and LE characters are easier than CE to integrate with a party.
    Obviously they won't mix well in parties with a majority of Good characters, but it can be done.
    My approach as Neutral Evil Thief was to play "ruthless mercenary" instead of the "crazed sadist sociopath" most teens see evil characters to be.
    Evil can be very much about how you do things rather than what or why.

    ReplyDelete
  4. (As for murderhoboes... I think many real-world medieval and renaissance mercenaries and condottieri perfectly fit the bill. So, maybe, murderhoboes are way more believable and realistic than many of the characters that we see in much fantasy literature, though less inspiring . And hardly role models for anything but adventuring tomb-robbers)

    ReplyDelete
  5. the problem isn't the "right group" it is the table contract. Many players take their stats/alignment/race as a license to be dicks. simple as that. they inflict damage on the rest of the party, and the other PCs take it personally. it is bad for the game. I cannot think of a time that a "good" PC has objected to stealing, killing, etc. but I can think of dozens of times that a thief, assassin etc has targeted a PC and it has ruined the table.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. True.
      My reasoning when I play Evil characters is that everybody is going to need friends and allies, and that's why I never kill or steal from the party when playing one. And that's why I think Lawful Evil and Neutral Evil characters are best suited for this.
      BTW, I'm not a fan of Palladium, but the Aberrant alignmemt was kind of perfectly playable evil character that won't be a dick to his friends.

      Delete
    2. Indeed. I don't care for alignment at all, but if you're going to use it stealing a page from Palladium's spread is a good idea. Aberrant is very clos eto teh de factor want many players run chaotic or neautral evil IME.

      Delete
  6. "Evil" characters make a lot more sense looking at the early history of the game. Starting with Braunstein, the tournament games pitted players against players, much more than players vs. DMs. In this context, having an "evil" PC makes a lot of sense, tactically.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The difference is, as you say, all in the roleplaying. A character that might betray the party if the reward is great enough is interesting. A character that regularly backstabs party members for pocket change is not. As others have mentioned, this usually comes down to player maturity and the realization that even evil people can have friends.

    ReplyDelete
  8. For a time, after college, my gaming group was particular circle of friends that almost always played characters who were the polar opposite of their own personalities. The devout Christian only picked assassins and ninjas; another — who eventually became a cop — ran amok and cheated at everything. My roommate at the time — who turned out to be a bully and actual nazi — insisted on playing noble warriors and lawful good PCs. Go figure.

    Once, my roommate tried to DM a campaign where we were all Chaotic Evil. It went sideways fast, and before the first session was out, we were hunting each other down to get a bigger share of the treasure, and most of the party was dead after someone (ok, me) locked them into a castle tower and set fire to it. After that, my nazi IRL roommate hilariously banned anyone from being evil ever again. Lol.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Monks have a very limited range of alignments, but Lawful Evil is among them."

    The whole class is based on 70s martial arts flicks, not reality. They had to have some kind of evil option to explain all the villains of those films. You're not chucking around flying guillotines and using quivering palms when you're good-aligned. :)

    ReplyDelete
  10. I don't mind people playing evil characters but I don't allow conflict between members of the same party and I make that clear when they roll up their characters. Back when I was living in a college town, there were a lot of people who were into RPGs and we had 5 or 6 campaigns going at the same time, with many players in most or all of the campaigns. Then the D&D game blew up.

    I wasn't involved in that game but from what I heard, the cause was a Chaotic Evil Assassin/Thief who screwed over his party, bad. The other players decided enough was enough and went after the troublemaker's PCs in every other game he was in starting the next night. My CoC game went from 13 PCs to 2 (they were on another continent), my Stormbringer game went from 10 PCs to 3 who were holed up in two different wizard's towers hiring every merc they could find and all that was left of my buddy's Traveller game was a glowing crater.

    I learned that lesson: no conflict within the party. If you need to play that kind of game, play somewhere else.

    ReplyDelete
  11. My most successful PC was a Chaotic Evil fighter, Hax Hammerclaw who reached the heady heights of Level 12. He worked okay in a parry of mixed alignments including Lawful Good on the basis that he had an over-arching personal goal for a specific magic sword and would co-operate with the party until that was achieved. He was chaotic in the sense that he always sought personal advantage and evil in the sense that he showed no mercy. He was warned off once or twice for running away from melee.

    Nowadays I'd frown on players having stereotypical evil characters and roll my eyes if they try and pick Chaotic Neutral as a work-around. It's a bit dull.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Conan's closest alignment in the Robert E. Howard stories would have been neutral evil, with maybe lawful tendencies, going by his corsair activity and violence against helpless villagers in "Vale Of Lost Women." It's not impossible, though I never went farther from good than Chaotic Neutral myself.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Here's a cool long-term goal for a player:

    Roll-up a neutral evil magic-user and (with lots of luck and hard work) attain 18th level, doing so while keeping your head down and trying not to attract attention to yourself. Then do whatever it takes to become a lich, and hole up in a secret place with traps that make the Tomb of Horrors look like B2, and with no treasures to tempt adventurers. Wait patiently to decay into a demi-lich to attain your ultimate reward: "roam[ing] strange planes unknown to even the wisest of sages".

    And there you have it: The ultimate "to the devil with you all [both gods and mortals]!". Let everyone else engage in their eternal warfare of good vs. evil, law vs. chaos, and neutral against all. Ignore and avoid them all (and doing whatever it takes) so as to engage in your own self-chosen paradise of exploring weird wonders undreamed of by men or by gods. Do that, and you've "won" D&D!

    ReplyDelete
  14. Whenever the issue of evil PCs comes up, I recall the forum debate in Dragon magazine between Katherine Kerr (issue #89) and Scott Hicks (issue #91). Kerr said that it's unhealthy to role-play evil PCs, and she also equated evil with mindless depravity. She was wrong about both, and Hicks wrote a good reply to her.

    It can be very healthy to role-play evil characters, just as actors play evil characters on screen and novelists write from the point of view of evil characters. Working artistically with our dark side is preferable to repressing it, and as James points out, the D&D game was obviously designed to allow for evil PCs as much as good ones. And yes, it's often fun, and challenging -- and perhaps even more rewarding -- to play "the villain", because the point of role-playing is to play a character that you aren't, and the greater the distance between yourself and your character, the more resources you need to summon to be true to the character. That's fun.

    I played evil PCs as often as I played good or neutral ones, and it was never a problem in my groups. The variance made for a rich imaginary world I inhabited as a teen.

    For those who want to see the debate between Kerr and Hicks, I blogged about it a while ago here:

    https://rossonl.wordpress.com/2015/10/14/playing-evil-characters-in-dd/

    ReplyDelete
  15. Really interesting piece here lames, and great discussion in the comments! However I think you've a typo here describing the NE thief/psionicist: "Here was a completely disreputable character, a liar and a cheat, whose actions were almost never self-interested" - I presume you meant to write that his actions were almost never *not* self-interested!

    ReplyDelete
  16. I GMed a very long campaign where the characters were evil when I was young and it was a LOT of fun. The group were criminals, led by a megalomaniacal halfling, who were motivated almost exclusively by power and pride. It was almost all player driven heists and revenge plots where the players would keep their plans secret from me until they acted on them. I wrote it about it here https://maziriansgarden.blogspot.com/2020/05/strange-games.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So... it was basically the infamous Hobbit Thieves Guild of Finieous Fingers?

      https://index.rpg.net/display-entry.phtml?articleid=21890

      Delete
  17. I always allowed evil PCs, one of my friends really liked to play evil characters and always ended up with the party members fighting and his character either dead or on the run. I would find it annoying nowadays but back when I was a teenager it was fun.

    My first character was a chaotic evil thief, along with several of my friend secondary characters we formed a thieves guild, we played several sessions of them building the business and eliminating rivals, good times.

    ReplyDelete