idk most evil characters in good parties are shit but they can be interesting. Especially if their goals are more focused on something like law and order by any means.
>Thinking I want to actually roleplay
Nah senpai. I just want to be a disruptive asshole. 🙂
so you go to take a shit? good job based retard but everybody poops
Yeah but I poop on you and your dubs so your argument is invalid.
idk most evil characters in good parties are shit but they can be interesting. Especially if their goals are more focused on something like law and order by any means.
>be a GM >players want to play evil characters >ok >prepare evil-oriented campaign >first/second evil thing to do >everyone going butthurt, campaign end
99% people who want to play evil character, doesn't actually want to be evil character, they just want to wear black armor with spikes and summon undead/demons and be edgy gays
Actually evil things are generally palatable, up to a certain point.
Fantasy villains are largely just insane psychos, not that many people want to roleplay as one.
My experience was different. I made an evil 5e campaign themed around working for the Zhentarim and a group of gangster dwarves heavily cribbed from parts of The Godfather films. My players would just stab random people, and then run away like cowards any time they had to face anything more difficult than a commoner. This culminated in a full party wipe against a paladin that chased them down eventually because they just didn't bother finishing any quests, killing any monsters, or anything else I could think of to grant XP. I banned evil alignments after that, and started dictating more any time someone does stupid shit ala, "No, you're character is Lawful Good. They do not threaten to stab the Duke, regardless of what you think. We're moving on." The games have been exceedingly better ever since then.
I think I could do an evil campaign a lot better now, but I would have to similarly railroad certain players a lot.
The trick is realizing that players want to be "nice" and aren't truly sadistic. If you want to see players start doing evil things without realizing it, make them play strategy games like Diplomacy.
Whenever they have to choose between the good path and the easy path, most people will pick the easy path.
The problem with evil characters is that players can't handle failure and/or consequences. They want to do evil shit and get away with it but they fail to see that RNG can fuck them up just as much as it does any other type of character but the consequences of doing evil deeds is ten times worse than the regular.
This is true, but sadly the type of guy who not only wants to, but insists, on being evil outside of an evil campaign always opts for the chaotic stupid variety.
For the most part the axis doesn’t exist nowadays. Alignments are just shorthand and discourse related mostly. It doesn’t even have to be a special campaign, but it is the sort of thing you have to hash out with the GM in session 0. Is it going to be a dark and gritty campaign with mature themes? High fantasy hijinks? A weeb game? If it fits, you probably don’t even have to say anything to the GM. But if you feel the need to bring up they’re evil to them, that’s probably because the campaign is better suited to good or vaguely "good" characters.
this, they can make a pact or contract with the party for mutual benefit. as long as they aren't intentionally retarded and avoid shaking the boat so to continue working together and honoring the pact it works fine and can even add some fun to the group - they can be the go to for intimidation and shake downs when asking nicely doesn't work, have weird connections to underworld merchant rings or spies the party is completely unaware of (bonus points if the contract stipulates the party can't rat on them to authorities), or be the creepy figure that silently stands watch during long rests and never seems to need to sleep.
works really well for taciturn, mysterious dark knights in service to a patron they will not reveal or unsettling mage types
Any evil can slot into a party well, the idea that neutral or chaotic makes your character a screaming retard is a nu-dnd concept spawned by redditors.
Have a purpose/ goal rather than just stabbing orphans and raping puppies and don't be a back stabbing dick who turns their coat at the first chance of treachery. Usually it works out, so long as you're playing a character and not mindless evil.
Fuck in my experience paladins usually cause more rifts in good parties cause half the time they're murder hobos and the other half they're such extreme pacifists they'd rather fight the party than just hang the fucking necromancer who admits he'll continue committing atrocities if he's allowed to live.
>they're such extreme pacifists they'd rather fight the party than just hang the fucking necromancer who admits he'll continue committing atrocities if he's allowed to live.
They are probably the same players who were shocked they broke their oath when using a hag's necromancy wand to complete a quest in bg3.
I played a straight up Chuuni once. A dragon obsessed weirdo, who at first glance looked like an edgelord cause he was an autist and socially awkward, which is why he sat away from everyone and would say typical edgelord things/ bad poetry when spoken to, and wore dark clothing/ armor (It was all he could find/ afford). The other players were weary at first, but found it hilarious when one of them actually tried talking with him at length, getting past his spaghetti spilling and realizing he was a complete autist rather than OC DONUT STEEL
that said he did lose his shit when, trying to intimidate a villain by detailing a traditional dragon inspired torture the villain corrected him smugly and the DM straight up gave me a few rounds of barbarians rage because of it.
>Make setting for my group where the city is owned by a corrupt family turned undead menagerie >The group for the most part decides right off the bat they do not want to even pretend to play ball with authority, immediately seek out the rebel faction >Except for one guy playing a quasi-loyalist, who after a brief argument on the matter, simply goes "alright fuck you lot then see ya" (the character that is, the player just went to reroll something more fitting) >Admiring the character's moxie, I turn him into the Sonic 3 Knuckles of the group, showing up every so often to dick with the party's efforts in a transitionary manner but not necessarily going for a kill, as he solos the entire loyalist campaign I would have had them do if they decided to go that way
>"Evil characters are ALWAYS chaotic murderhobo retard evil"
When a DM does this I pull out my pink CN female tiefling warlock. Her patron is an archfae she fucked so good she was given powers and a mission to slut it up.
She is a deliberately disruptive shit character. Because retards who can't distinguish between goal-oriented NE, and "I roll to shit up the kings ass" CE deserve to be punished
Chaotic characters get shit on more than evil characters. Someone who doesn't allow evil character won't allow chaotic characters either.
You're the person being gatekept
That's not true, though. Most D&D (>inb4 HYTNPDND) discussions demonize evil characters, only making an exception for Lawful Evil. They do not generally hate on Chaotic Neutral, because the majority of D&D players think that it's funny rather than obnoxious.
Correct. Midwits who try to gatekeep alignment quickly learn to their misery that any of those two letter labels can be a source of disrupted scenes, ruined moments and uncomfortable encounters.
All because they assume that NE means "I am going to betray the party in 50 sessions" and not "I will only do what I can safely get away with"
>Midwits who try to gatekeep alignment quickly learn to their misery that any of those two letter labels can be a source of disrupted scenes, ruined moments and uncomfortable encounters
Yeah, I don't even bother with alignment these days. You just give me a character pitch, and I'll determine whether that character fits the campaign or doesn't.
>That's not true
It is true. People bitch about lolsorandum chaotic characters all the time. It's the only alignment I've seen players have to ask to play.
>People bitch about lolsorandum chaotic characters all the time
Which people? People on /tg/? The bastion of contrarianism?
People on reddit and in actual D&D games will talk about lolsorandum stuff all the time, as if it's a highlight of their experiences.
>That's not true
It is true. People bitch about lolsorandum chaotic characters all the time. It's the only alignment I've seen players have to ask to play.
After 6 evil deeds profound enough to gain you a point of evil on your character sheet you are firmly cemented as a villain. Your character now acts in predictably evil ways befitting the npc they become, while you are asked to create a new character.
Also I don't like or offer to run games with "evil" characters.
>Literal shitposting
We are reaching the bottom low that shouldn't be even possible
>Literal shitposting
>OP's post
This is how you know /tg/'s been cordial with its jannies since 2010's Nazimod
>t. wasn't even born in 2010
Ok discord moderator
Play CN, it's effectively the same thing.
so you go to take a shit? good job based retard but everybody poops
what's her problem?
rape him
it's the only way
If the rest of the party is good then making an evil character is cringe.
All-villain parties are based, however.
>Thinking I want to actually roleplay
Nah senpai. I just want to be a disruptive asshole. 🙂
Yeah but I poop on you and your dubs so your argument is invalid.
Blessed and shitpilled thread
idk most evil characters in good parties are shit but they can be interesting. Especially if their goals are more focused on something like law and order by any means.
In a good party or campaign? He’s right to. Unless it’s lawful evil, and you’re smart about it. Otherwise fuck off with that.
>be a GM
>players want to play evil characters
>ok
>prepare evil-oriented campaign
>first/second evil thing to do
>everyone going butthurt, campaign end
99% people who want to play evil character, doesn't actually want to be evil character, they just want to wear black armor with spikes and summon undead/demons and be edgy gays
Sorry nobody wanted to take part of your torture-porn session.
Why not just let them be edgy gays? You don't have to cater to the collective subconscious meme culture of /tg/ anon.
Actually evil things are generally palatable, up to a certain point.
Fantasy villains are largely just insane psychos, not that many people want to roleplay as one.
what “things”
being evil means doing selfish things and getting power at others’ expense, not flaying bums for no reason
My experience was different. I made an evil 5e campaign themed around working for the Zhentarim and a group of gangster dwarves heavily cribbed from parts of The Godfather films. My players would just stab random people, and then run away like cowards any time they had to face anything more difficult than a commoner. This culminated in a full party wipe against a paladin that chased them down eventually because they just didn't bother finishing any quests, killing any monsters, or anything else I could think of to grant XP. I banned evil alignments after that, and started dictating more any time someone does stupid shit ala, "No, you're character is Lawful Good. They do not threaten to stab the Duke, regardless of what you think. We're moving on." The games have been exceedingly better ever since then.
I think I could do an evil campaign a lot better now, but I would have to similarly railroad certain players a lot.
The trick is realizing that players want to be "nice" and aren't truly sadistic. If you want to see players start doing evil things without realizing it, make them play strategy games like Diplomacy.
Whenever they have to choose between the good path and the easy path, most people will pick the easy path.
The problem with evil characters is that players can't handle failure and/or consequences. They want to do evil shit and get away with it but they fail to see that RNG can fuck them up just as much as it does any other type of character but the consequences of doing evil deeds is ten times worse than the regular.
How would you even rp an evil character with a good party though? I always play evil edgelords in RPGs but only do my evil guys during solo campaigns
Lawful Evil is very easy to slot into a good party
This is true, but sadly the type of guy who not only wants to, but insists, on being evil outside of an evil campaign always opts for the chaotic stupid variety.
You shouldn't need a special campaign to play an evil character. The good vs evil axis shouldn't even exist.
For the most part the axis doesn’t exist nowadays. Alignments are just shorthand and discourse related mostly. It doesn’t even have to be a special campaign, but it is the sort of thing you have to hash out with the GM in session 0. Is it going to be a dark and gritty campaign with mature themes? High fantasy hijinks? A weeb game? If it fits, you probably don’t even have to say anything to the GM. But if you feel the need to bring up they’re evil to them, that’s probably because the campaign is better suited to good or vaguely "good" characters.
this, they can make a pact or contract with the party for mutual benefit. as long as they aren't intentionally retarded and avoid shaking the boat so to continue working together and honoring the pact it works fine and can even add some fun to the group - they can be the go to for intimidation and shake downs when asking nicely doesn't work, have weird connections to underworld merchant rings or spies the party is completely unaware of (bonus points if the contract stipulates the party can't rat on them to authorities), or be the creepy figure that silently stands watch during long rests and never seems to need to sleep.
works really well for taciturn, mysterious dark knights in service to a patron they will not reveal or unsettling mage types
Any evil can slot into a party well, the idea that neutral or chaotic makes your character a screaming retard is a nu-dnd concept spawned by redditors.
I’ve seen retards pretending evil or (non-good) chaotic is fundamentally incompatible with the game since at least 2e
Have a purpose/ goal rather than just stabbing orphans and raping puppies and don't be a back stabbing dick who turns their coat at the first chance of treachery. Usually it works out, so long as you're playing a character and not mindless evil.
Fuck in my experience paladins usually cause more rifts in good parties cause half the time they're murder hobos and the other half they're such extreme pacifists they'd rather fight the party than just hang the fucking necromancer who admits he'll continue committing atrocities if he's allowed to live.
>they're such extreme pacifists they'd rather fight the party than just hang the fucking necromancer who admits he'll continue committing atrocities if he's allowed to live.
They are probably the same players who were shocked they broke their oath when using a hag's necromancy wand to complete a quest in bg3.
I played a straight up Chuuni once. A dragon obsessed weirdo, who at first glance looked like an edgelord cause he was an autist and socially awkward, which is why he sat away from everyone and would say typical edgelord things/ bad poetry when spoken to, and wore dark clothing/ armor (It was all he could find/ afford). The other players were weary at first, but found it hilarious when one of them actually tried talking with him at length, getting past his spaghetti spilling and realizing he was a complete autist rather than OC DONUT STEEL
that said he did lose his shit when, trying to intimidate a villain by detailing a traditional dragon inspired torture the villain corrected him smugly and the DM straight up gave me a few rounds of barbarians rage because of it.
That sounds like a blast
You don't play an alignment, you play a character instead of a caricature and let the GM figure out what your alignment should be if it ever matters.
If a GM can figure out what your alignment is, so can you. Stop being lazy
.t normalfag who plays an alignment like a gay instead of a character.
>Make setting for my group where the city is owned by a corrupt family turned undead menagerie
>The group for the most part decides right off the bat they do not want to even pretend to play ball with authority, immediately seek out the rebel faction
>Except for one guy playing a quasi-loyalist, who after a brief argument on the matter, simply goes "alright fuck you lot then see ya" (the character that is, the player just went to reroll something more fitting)
>Admiring the character's moxie, I turn him into the Sonic 3 Knuckles of the group, showing up every so often to dick with the party's efforts in a transitionary manner but not necessarily going for a kill, as he solos the entire loyalist campaign I would have had them do if they decided to go that way
kino
Most eggselent
>playing a system with alignments
>Implying I care about alignment
I just want to be a disruptive murderhobo for the sake of ruining a tabletop game.
Literally me
>HE'S MAKING A FUNNY FACE WHILE SHITTING!!!
Kricfalusi is a hack
>DnD
>"Evil characters are ALWAYS chaotic murderhobo retard evil"
When a DM does this I pull out my pink CN female tiefling warlock. Her patron is an archfae she fucked so good she was given powers and a mission to slut it up.
She is a deliberately disruptive shit character. Because retards who can't distinguish between goal-oriented NE, and "I roll to shit up the kings ass" CE deserve to be punished
Chaotic characters get shit on more than evil characters. Someone who doesn't allow evil character won't allow chaotic characters either.
You're the person being gatekept
That's not true, though. Most D&D (>inb4 HYTNPDND) discussions demonize evil characters, only making an exception for Lawful Evil. They do not generally hate on Chaotic Neutral, because the majority of D&D players think that it's funny rather than obnoxious.
Correct. Midwits who try to gatekeep alignment quickly learn to their misery that any of those two letter labels can be a source of disrupted scenes, ruined moments and uncomfortable encounters.
All because they assume that NE means "I am going to betray the party in 50 sessions" and not "I will only do what I can safely get away with"
>Midwits who try to gatekeep alignment quickly learn to their misery that any of those two letter labels can be a source of disrupted scenes, ruined moments and uncomfortable encounters
Yeah, I don't even bother with alignment these days. You just give me a character pitch, and I'll determine whether that character fits the campaign or doesn't.
>People bitch about lolsorandum chaotic characters all the time
Which people? People on /tg/? The bastion of contrarianism?
People on reddit and in actual D&D games will talk about lolsorandum stuff all the time, as if it's a highlight of their experiences.
>That's not true
It is true. People bitch about lolsorandum chaotic characters all the time. It's the only alignment I've seen players have to ask to play.
With good reason
>"No, you can't play that character."
Nice punishment, retard.
After 6 evil deeds profound enough to gain you a point of evil on your character sheet you are firmly cemented as a villain. Your character now acts in predictably evil ways befitting the npc they become, while you are asked to create a new character.
Also I don't like or offer to run games with "evil" characters.
Just play Chaotic Good, people use it to be dumb shit like commie revolutionaries, which are clearly evil
>>GM won't let me
Cuck