Things to Keep in Mind When RPing Evil

[Eclypticon]

Sometimes, you should play not to win. Every now and then, an Evil PC should die and stay that way. Your actions are so bad, sometimes there needs to be IC consequences.

Just because you are evil, does not mean you cannot be good (give to the poor, feed an orphan. RP good things, It is OK. Only Ao knows what you are really doing if he even cares to. Your motives may include good deeds outwardly, but inside is something else.

[gedweyignasia]

Very much agree with this. I'd go as far as to say that every EPC should pick a point in their character's progression (RP-wise, level-wise so the character sheet actually describes the character you dreamed up) where any RP-motivated death (PvP, DM event) will be played as permadeath. It'd be a good policy for Good/Neutral PCs too, but we all get attached to our characters (when we don't wind up hating them) and those tend not to be the sore thumb an immortal EPC is.

If the character can't really die, the whole life/death thing loses its meaning. If your character can't die, it's really just part of the setting.

[Hitman Hard]

The most sucessful evil pcs around are the ones who've played for years and have real edge/influence in the game. Perma-killing your character right off the bat, or even a few months into the character is a diservice, but as Eclypticon said play smart.

[c2k]

Sometimes, you should play not to win. Every now and then, an Good PC should die and stay that way. Your actions are so good, sometimes there needs to be IC consequences.

Just because you are good, does not mean you cannot be evil(steal from the poor, feed an orphan to an orc. RP evil things, It is OK. Only Ao knows what you are really doing if he even cares to. Your motives may include sinister deeds outwardly, but inside is something else.

I couldn't resist.

Although, I meant everything I changed in the first paragraph.

[Lockonnow]

if you force you self to do good thing like give to the poor you will lose some of you evil point and get good point so dont do that

[Baboonicorn]

if you force you self to do good thing like give to the poor you will lose some of you evil point and get good point so dont do that

Only if you do those good things for unselfish reasons. Giving money to charity is great for PR, and the resulting approval can be more profitable than what you've given away. Your intent determines whether an action is good or evil, not the action itself.

Sometimes, your evil PC may cooperate with the good faction to defeat a rival power - not all evil PCs should be paladins of darkness all the time (I'd actually suggest avoiding being monstrously evil for its own sake as that tends to be cartoonish.)

[Considerate_]

I understand where you're coming from Baboonicorn, but I'm afraid the rules aren't quite in agreement with that.

Ends and means
When do good ends justify evil means to achieve them? is it morally acceptable, for example, to torture an evil captive in order to extract vital information that can prevent the deaths of thousands of innocents? Any good character shudders at the thought of committing torture, but the goal of preventing thousands of deaths is undeniably a virtuous one, and a neutral character might easily consider the use of torture in such a circumstance. With evil acts on a smaller scale, even the most virtuous characters can find themselves tempted to agree that a very good end justifies a mildly evil means. Is it acceptable to tell a small lie in order to prevent a minor catastrophe? A large catastrophe? A world-shattering catastrophe?

In the D&D universe, the fundamental answer is no, an evil act is an evil act no matter what good result it may achieve

Source: Book of Exalted Dees, page 9

The same, of course, holds true the other way around

Even if you do something good, with the intention of doing something bad later, you'll still get good points.

That's one of the dangers evil character suffer, when they try to infiltrate good organisations or pose with a good front. They're confronted with some of the feelings you get, from doing good things.

Even the most hardened Bhaalite, will be able to feel a tug at their heart string, if a crying mother is thanking him for saving her only child. How he deals with that, is up to himself.
If he beheads the mother, he probably won't have to deal with that warm feeling around the refrigerator where others have a heart for much longer.
If he just have to stand there and accept it, who knows what thoughts that will spur? Even if he only did it to cements the good guys belief in him as a good guy.

It's not only good guys who can be corrupted, there's a redemption to be had too for evil characters.

[thids]

Very much agree with this. I'd go as far as to say that every EPC should pick a point in their character's progression (RP-wise, level-wise so the character sheet actually describes the character you dreamed up) where any RP-motivated death (PvP, DM event) will be played as permadeath. It'd be a good policy for Good/Neutral PCs too, but we all get attached to our characters (when we don't wind up hating them) and those tend not to be the sore thumb an immortal EPC is.

If the character can't really die, the whole life/death thing loses its meaning. If your character can't die, it's really just part of the setting.

This is not a pnp campaign designed for good aligned player characters where the only evil characters are NPC's played by a DM which exist solely for the entertainment of players. This is a pw where most of those evil characters have players behind them, it's a two-way street.

[Baboonicorn]

Source: Book of Exalted Dees, page 9

I do find a lot of the material in Exalted Deeds and Vile Darkness to be unhelpful when attempting to play believable characters, but your point is taken.

I'll just have to make sure I'm more evil behind closed doors to compensate for Hendrick's kindly deeds in the name of expediency.

[c2k]

Source: Book of Exalted Dees, page 9

I do find a lot of the material in Exalted Deeds and Vile Darkness to be unhelpful when attempting to play believable characters, but your point is taken.

I concur. While they add some meat to both sides of the spectrum, they also add a lot of ridiculously extreme ideals that would be hard to sell in a gray world like the Forgotten Realms.

For example, using the example of the crying mother and child, what if the child saved was that of the villain's blood? The villain is still evil, but even evil people have been known to protect their own blood. Saving the child isn't going to change the villain's want to oppress their enemies and make them suffer beneath their boot print or mass execute some unlucky wanderers.

[Baboonicorn]

This is not a pnp campaign designed for good aligned player characters where the only evil characters are NPC's played by a DM which exist solely for the entertainment of players. This is a pw where most of those evil characters have players behind them, it's a two-way street.

The issue here, though, is that where evil wins (on the surface), things usually change for the worse for everyone else.

If an evil dragon managed to eliminate the Dukes and replace them with puppets of their own choosing, the entire setting of Baldur's Gate would change.

If the Temple of Bhaal took back the Friendly Arm, the adventuring community would need to find a different landmark to hang around outside.

In the Underdark, obviously, Good takes the role of Evil here.

Evil surface characters should expect the odds to be stacked against them. If you create an evil character, plan for his or her demise. While, as Hitman says, the best evil characters are the ones who survive tormenting the forces of good for a long time, you shouldn't be afraid of being the villain of the week if the story is good enough.

I don't think the OP was proposing that an evil PC should face permadeath if they're caught threatening little Jeremy for Lady Adora's bracelet, but if their master plan is foiled and they are caught, it seems fair for that character's story to end.

[Considerate_]

From my perspective, a truly believable character is one that isn't pigeon-holed into only one facet of life. It isn't the always virtuous Paladin or the ever cruel Blackguard.

It's the Paladin who's fallible, and occasionally have sinful thoughts.

It's the Blackguard who, after slaughtering a contingent of Radiant Heart men-at-arms, stops to help a little girl recover her toy, tangled in a bush.

Those little soft spots, that allow others to interact and have a meaningful impact on their character. The Blackguard won't be most susceptible to being redeemed, after he's gorged himself on the blood of those poor men at arms... but if you were to get a hold of him in that moment of goodness, where he did something to better the life of others... who knows what RP that could spark!

That doesn't mean your character should be ping-ponging between the good and evil axis on the alignment spectre every day. But maybe it's worth giving thought to 'at what point is my character most susceptible to conversion to another faith/alignment?'


That's my personal view, and one of the facets of RP I love playing out the most - when you have an impact on others, or they have an impact on your character. For better or worse.

[Baboonicorn]

From my perspective, a truly believable character is one that isn't pigeon-holed into only one facet of life. It isn't the always virtuous Paladin or the ever cruel Blackguard.

It's the Paladin who's fallible, and occasionally have sinful thoughts.

It's the Blackguard who, after slaughtering a contingent of Radiant Heart men-at-arms, stops to help a little girl recover her toy, tangled in a bush.

Those little soft spots, that allow others to interact and have a meaningful impact on their character. The Blackguard won't be most susceptible to being redeemed, after he's gorged himself on the blood of those poor men at arms... but if you were to get a hold of him in that moment of goodness, where he did something to better the life of others... who knows what RP that could spark!

That doesn't mean your character should be ping-ponging between the good and evil axis on the alignment spectre every day. But maybe it's worth giving thought to 'at what point is my character most susceptible to conversion to another faith/alignment?'


That's my personal view, and one of the facets of RP I love playing out the most - when you have an impact on others, or they have an impact on your character. For better or worse.

+1, total agreement here.

[Considerate_]

For example, using the example of the crying mother and child, what if the child saved was that of the villain's blood? The villain is still evil, but even evil people have been known to protect their own blood. Saving the child isn't going to change the villain's want to oppress their enemies and make them suffer beneath their boot print or mass execute some unlucky wanderers.

That would be a chink in the armour of any vile person. If you were able to hold such compassion, that you'd risk your own life to save another's (even if it was your child), then you have to study the emotions and feelings underneath it.

How would that persuade him, if he watched a father trying to sacrifice himself for his son? Would he be able to kill them both in cold blood? Or would it stir an emotion in him, a realization that there's a shared connection he was about to break, much akin to that of his own? Maybe he could kill them, but what would that do to his mental equilibrium?

He might find it easy killing the two apart, if he were never to learn of their involvement with each other. But seeing them together, would make him think of slaying his own kin.

Personally, I think it would be fantastic RP if that was the case.

[thids]

The issue here, though, is that where evil wins (on the surface), things usually change for the worse for everyone else.

If an evil dragon managed to eliminate the Dukes and replace them with puppets of their own choosing, the entire setting of Baldur's Gate would change.

If the Temple of Bhaal took back the Friendly Arm, the adventuring community would need to find a different landmark to hang around outside.

In the Underdark, obviously, Good takes the role of Evil here.

Evil surface characters should expect the odds to be stacked against them. If you create an evil character, plan for his or her demise. While, as Hitman says, the best evil characters are the ones who survive tormenting the forces of good for a long time, you shouldn't be afraid of being the villain of the week if the story is good enough.

I don't think the OP was proposing that an evil PC should face permadeath if they're caught threatening little Jeremy for Lady Adora's bracelet, but if their master plan is foiled and they are caught, it seems fair for that character's story to end.

I was not quoting the OP I was quoting gedweyignasia. Thinking there is a "winning" side is the wrong approach here. As is thinking that the evil characters exist to serve the rest of the server for advancement of their RP/story/character development without offering the same in return. Also I am not talking about dragons invading Baldur's Gate, liches turning entire populations into their undead servants and similar things. I thought the server population has made their stance clear on epic cataclysmic events which shake the foundations of several planes at once in the polls over the last few months

Why should I prepare for my evil characters demise any more than I should for my good and neutral aligned ones? Are you trying to say that if an evil characters master plan fails and it results in his death he should stay dead, but if a good aligned character fails to defeat an ancient evil in a long plot and it results in his death he should stay in fugue for a minute or two (depending on his load times) then come back to FAI and be like "oh well, let's try this again!"?


Just to clarify I think both should take it as an opportunity to end that character's story.