On evil PCs

[Honest Tiefling]

If a player is disruptive, it doesn't matter what is on their character sheet. They won't just have their mount poop. They will poop in the well and execute the guard that comes to arrest them and then demand that the barmaid loves them now because of a high charisma score. I have seen a paladin player rape people and kill children. Giving these players a paladin won't fix a thing.

[Deepbluediver]

If a player is disruptive, it doesn't matter what is on their character sheet. They won't just have their mount poop. They will poop in the well and execute the guard that comes to arrest them and then demand that the barmaid loves them now because of a high charisma score. I have seen a paladin player rape people and kill children. Giving these players a paladin won't fix a thing.

Yeah, but the GM can say "you're not acting like a paladin would act, as detailed in the rulebook". You fall, lose your abilities, and everyone comes to kill you. Everything you described would be totally in character for a evil Necromancer.

[Keltest]

Because the GM has fewer tools to guide them back onto the right path. If a paladin is being lawful-stupid then the GM can still control the laws of the campaign world. If a good character isn't acting good you can inform them of such and ask them to try harder to abide by the established rules of the game-world.

The only things you can really threaten an evil player with is the destruction of their character. It's a lot easier for an evil character to do things that are detrimental to the group, while still being "in character".

the GM needs exactly one too to guide them onto the right path, and that is to tell them to quit being disruptive. Trying to use in-character solutions to out of character problems is a recipe for badness.

Yeah, but the GM can say "you're not acting like a paladin would act, as detailed in the rulebook". You fall, lose your abilities, and everyone comes to kill you. Everything you described would be totally in character for a evil Necromancer.

A DM can also say "Youre being disruptive, quit it or we will stop playing with you."

[Deepbluediver]

the GM needs exactly one too to guide them onto the right path, and that is to tell them to quit being disruptive. Trying to use in-character solutions to out of character problems is a recipe for badness.
....
A DM can also say "Youre being disruptive, quit it or we will stop playing with you."

But an evil character can reply "I'm just doing what my character would do! Why did you tell me I could play an evil character if you won't let me do anything?"

It's not a question in my mind of potential- it's a fact that "evil" characters always seem to cause a lot more problems than "good" ones do.

[Honest Tiefling]

Yeah, but the GM can say "you're not acting like a paladin would act, as detailed in the rulebook". You fall, lose your abilities, and everyone comes to kill you. Everything you described would be totally in character for a evil Necromancer.

And then what happens? Regardless of the class or alignment, the player usually just complains and keeps on being trucking. So maybe the problem isn't the alignment, but the person behind the character.

[Keltest]

But an evil character can reply "I'm just doing what my character would do! Why did you tell me I could play an evil character if you won't let me do anything?"

It's not a question in my mind of potential- it's a fact that "evil" characters always seem to cause a lot more problems than "good" ones do.

then the GM can throw a rulebook at them for pulling out what is basically code for "I know im doing a bad thing". If the only way they know how to play a necromancer is legitimately to ride into a village, kill everyone and their cats, then animate the bodies into an unliving toilet for them to use, then they should reassess what theyre doing there.

Also, im fairly certain that is decidedly not a fact.

[Amphetryon]

Apparently, some folks in this thread don't find a Lawful Good Paladin digging her heels in and refusing to go on the adventure the rest of the (non-Evil) party is interested in, on the grounds that she needs to go right the wrongs of the world instead of [X], to be disruptive.

Most of the complaints against Evil Characters listed thus far are answered by the "My Character WOULD Do That!" article from several years ago, because the disruptive behavior has almost nothing to do with the PC being Evil, and almost everything to do with the Player being immature/selfish or otherwise acting out.

[Slarg]

But an evil character can reply "I'm just doing what my character would do! Why did you tell me I could play an evil character if you won't let me do anything?"

It's not a question in my mind of potential- it's a fact that "evil" characters always seem to cause a lot more problems than "good" ones do.

Problems of what nature?

A Carriage pulled by Congoing-undead? Have the town guards kick him out of town. Have the town have a very faithful church that burns any undead entering town via Faith alone. Have the town be celebrating it's version of Halloween, so that it loves the fact there are Spooky Scary Skeletons shimmying up the gate.

Player kills too many NPCs? Throw him in jail, then set the bail for other players to pay at a moderately high cost. You just forced your players to come to the conclusion of "Is this guy and his shenanigans worth us losing a Magic Item/time?" and if they DO pay it, suddenly whenever he starts getting stupid you have every other player saying "Are we going to have to bail you out again?"/"I am NOT bailing you out this time."

Player gets too feely with the other party members/NPCs (As detailed in a LOT of Worst player posts in that thread)? Have them contract a divinely afflicted disease that heavily punishes that character, exponentially as time goes on, and give them a quest for redemption. That much of a detour is going to get really old, FAST, especially if you force them to give up items/experience in order to do it.


Saying "You can't do that because your code says so" is lazy DMing, IMHO.

[Deepbluediver]

then the GM can throw a rulebook at them for pulling out what is basically code for "I know im doing a bad thing". If the only way they know how to play a necromancer is legitimately to ride into a village, kill everyone and their cats, then animate the bodies into an unliving toilet for them to use, then they should reassess what theyre doing there.

Not really sure what you're referring to here- my point was that "evil" characters in a non-evil campaign setting need to have the book thrown at them far more than not-evil characters.

In essence, it's easier to not wreck the campaign world and stay within the boundaries that a GM has designed for a good character than an evil one. If you can't/won't play a good or neutral character, why should I trust you with a an evil character?

Also, im fairly certain that is decidedly not a fact.

It's a fact in the sense that it's what my experience tells me. If you say "well I can play an evil character without doing X..." that's all well and good, but it still might not set the right tone, and this argument isn't really about you and me. Almost EVERYONE is going to think "sure I can play an evil character well". It's about what a GM either know his players can handle or what he wants to risk for unknown players.

I've seen it happen- I was in a party once that almost came to blows because of differences between 1 LG character (and not a lawful-stupid one at that), and the rest of the party which leaned heavily towards chaos. Not even evil-chaotic, just CN with a little CG.

[Slarg]

Not really sure what you're referring to here- my point was that "evil" characters in a non-evil campaign setting need to have the book thrown at them far more than not-evil characters.

In essence, it's easier to not wreck the campaign world and stay within the boundaries that a GM has designed for a good character than an evil one. If you can't/won't play a good or neutral character, why should I trust you with a an evil character?


It's a fact in the sense that it's what my experience tells me. If you say "well I can play an evil character without doing X..." that's all well and good, but it still might not set the right tone, and this argument isn't really about you and me. Almost EVERYONE is going to think "sure I can play an evil character well". It's about what a GM either know his players can handle or what he wants to risk for unknown players.

I've seen it happen- I was in a party once that almost came to blows because of differences between 1 LG character (and not a lawful-stupid one at that), and the rest of the party which leaned heavily towards chaos. Not even evil-chaotic, just CN with a little CG.

Since the rest of the party was Chaotic, wouldn't that be the LG players fault? Even if he/she wasn't a Lawful-Stupid character, they were still the outlier.

[Keltest]

Not really sure what you're referring to here- my point was that "evil" characters in a non-evil campaign setting need to have the book thrown at them far more than not-evil characters.

In essence, it's easier to not wreck the campaign world and stay within the boundaries that a GM has designed for a good character than an evil one. If you can't/won't play a good or neutral character, why should I trust you with a an evil character?


It's a fact in the sense that it's what my experience tells me. If you say "well I can play an evil character without doing X..." that's all well and good, but it still might not set the right tone, and this argument isn't really about you and me. Almost EVERYONE is going to think "sure I can play an evil character well". It's about what a GM either know his players can handle or what he wants to risk for unknown players.

I've seen it happen- I was in a party once that almost came to blows because of differences between 1 LG character (and not a lawful-stupid one at that), and the rest of the party which leaned heavily towards chaos. Not even evil-chaotic, just CN with a little CG.

Ok, so obviously, if the player is going in trying to play an orphanage arsonist in a generally heroic campaign, they need to have their expectations adjusted.

However, the same goes for trying to play a paladin in a party of thieves and murderers. If you have seen more evil characters go wrong than good ones, it seems highly probable to me that it is because you have participated in more heroic campaigns than neutral or villainous campaigns.

[Deepbluediver]

Player kills too many NPCs? Throw him in jail, then set the bail for other players to pay at a moderately high cost. You just forced your players to come to the conclusion of "Is this guy and his shenanigans worth us losing a Magic Item/time?" and if they DO pay it, suddenly whenever he starts getting stupid you have every other player saying "Are we going to have to bail you out again?"/"I am NOT bailing you out this time."

Player gets too feely with the other party members/NPCs (As detailed in a LOT of Worst player posts in that thread)? Have them contract a divinely afflicted disease that heavily punishes that character, exponentially as time goes on, and give them a quest for redemption. That much of a detour is going to get really old, FAST, especially if you force them to give up items/experience in order to do it.

Yeah, but my point is that a player playing a Good or Neutral character well is less likely to be than a player for whom all those things have no moral boundaries.

Essentially, if a character is being played poorly then they can cause problems. But even when played well evil characters cause more problems than good characters. Good characters have both their own morals and GM-displeasure holding them back, while evil-characters have only 1 of those.

Since the rest of the party was Chaotic, wouldn't that be the LG players fault? Even if he/she wasn't a Lawful-Stupid character, they were still the outlier.

Even if you're going to assign blame, problems are not always the outlier's fault, and nor should a party be absolutely required to all fit in one alignment.

My point was mainly about possibly-irreconcilable alignment differences, and Good and Evil get along a lot less well than Law and Chaos. In this case, we WERE able to eventually reach an accord, mostly since the issue was a one-done-and-solved. But why should a good character agree to continuously travel alongside and cooperate with someone who routinely violates his every moral code? A "work together to save the world" scenario isn't always applicable can usually only keep a clash in check temporarily.

[Keltest]

Even if you're going to assign blame, problems are not always the outlier's fault, and nor should a party be absolutely required to all fit in one alignment.

My point was mainly about possibly-irreconcilable alignment differences, and Good and Evil get along a lot less well than Law and Chaos. In this case, we WERE able to eventually reach an accord, mostly since the issue was a one-done-and-solved. But why should a good character agree to continuously travel alongside and cooperate with someone who routinely violates his every moral code? A "work together to save the world" scenario isn't always applicable can usually only keep a clash in check temporarily.

I think youre confusing cause and effect here. The player is not disruptive because theyre evil, theyre evil because theyre disruptive. If you were to veto evil characters, they would find a different way to be disruptive. Theyre creating their character with the knowledge that it will end up creating problems, and no amount of DM restriction short of not allowing them to play is going to change that unless you confront them directly and tell them to quit doing that.

[Jay R]

Er, I don't think that was a discussion of real-world morality, so much as a questioning of the wisdom of destroying your own assets. It certainly wasn't "real-world" any more than anything else we've discussed; he's talking about adventuring parties. We don't exactly have many of those in the real world.

We don't? Oh, man - I've been taking the wrong approach all the way through. No wonder the committee at my job isn't taking any of my suggestions.

[Deepbluediver]

Ok, so obviously, if the player is going in trying to play an orphanage arsonist in a generally heroic campaign, they need to have their expectations adjusted.

I'm all for GMs and their players sitting down and talking out expectations for a game or campaign before character creation, let alone before everyone sits down to play. Assuming that everyone is on the same page as you is one of the most common (if not the single greatest) source of unnecessary inter-group drama, and that's applicable to both players and GMs.
If a GM doesn't volunteer certain information I'll ask, and if they refuse to provide it then that's a major red flag.

If I show up to your campaign with an orcish berserker and you've planned an adventure full of stealth, intrigue, investigation, and politics, then I'm going to either sit there with nothing to do or I'm going to use my one and only skill set and hit your campaign like a rampaging elephant in a ward for children with brittle bone disease.

If a group of players came to me and said "we want to be allowed to play evil characters" my first question would be "why?" and the followup would be "given total freedom, what do you plan to do?" If they just want to **** around and kill stuff, I don't have a problem with that, but I want to design a separate world (a special little playpen) for them to do that in. I'm not going to slot in an evil character into a campaign that's already running unless I'm absolutely certain that no one is going to get upset by the fallout from that characters probable actions.

However, the same goes for trying to play a paladin in a party of thieves and murderers. If you have seen more evil characters go wrong than good ones, it seems highly probable to me that it is because you have participated in more heroic campaigns than neutral or villainous campaigns.

Yes, that's true about my experiences, but the GM has the final say over what kind of game or campaign is being run. If you want to do something different, then you can either bow out for a few sessions, look for another group, or offer to run a campaign yourself.

I'm not saying that evil characters are impossible, I'm saying that it's much easier for them to cause problems and that there are fewer tools to discourage them without going OOC. And also that even taking absolute value into account and converting to a percentage of total games played, players playing evil characters seem to screw things up far more often.

[Deepbluediver]

I think youre confusing cause and effect here. The player is not disruptive because theyre evil, theyre evil because theyre disruptive. If you were to veto evil characters, they would find a different way to be disruptive. Theyre creating their character with the knowledge that it will end up creating problems, and no amount of DM restriction short of not allowing them to play is going to change that unless you confront them directly and tell them to quit doing that.

No, what I'm saying is that when people play evil characters they end up being far more disruptive than when they are playing good characters. Good (as in skillful) players morph into bad ones when they change 4 letters on their character sheet.

If a player can't play a Good (capital G) character well, then that's a sign they are a bad player, not that I'm being overly restrictive with my alignment requirements. I've never seen a single example of someone playing poorly who suddenly morphs into a better who enhances the experience of the entire group when I start letting them get away with even more murder, theft, and betrayal than PCs typically comit.

[Slarg]

Yeah, but my point is that a player playing a Good or Neutral character well is less likely to be than a player for whom all those things have no moral boundaries.

Essentially, if a character is being played poorly then they can cause problems. But even when played well evil characters cause more problems than good characters. Good characters have both their own morals and GM-displeasure holding them back, while evil-characters have only 1 of those.

Except those characters do have moral boundaries, just not the typical ones. They value gold, they value fame, they value themselves. Play into those things, and a evil character is no more disruptive than a normal one.

Give me an example of an evil deed for an evil character to do (Don't even worry about being too over the top) and I'll show you how to roleplay that problem away. As long as you give appropriate consequences to all actions, you really don't have to worry about Fish-Malk syndrome.

Even if you're going to assign blame, problems are not always the outlier's fault, and nor should a party be absolutely required to all fit in one alignment.

My point was mainly about possibly-irreconcilable alignment differences, and Good and Evil get along a lot less well than Law and Chaos. In this case, we WERE able to eventually reach an accord, mostly since the issue was a one-done-and-solved. But why should a good character agree to continuously travel alongside and cooperate with someone who routinely violates his every moral code? A "work together to save the world" scenario isn't always applicable can usually only keep a clash in check temporarily.

-Good character is trying to redeem bad guys. (Book from Firefly)
-Good character is good, but has a fatal flaw that allows him to travel with evil characters (Is a nice guy with the "wrong" crowd; too cowardly to stand up to peer pressure). (Robin, Villains by Necessity)
-Lawful Good Character is too naive to understand what they are doing is bad, and a higher authority exists than his brother/friend. (Simone, Gurren Lagann)
-Good character is apprehensive about what bad guys do, and is slowly redeeming himself (Kills because it's what his friends do, but only when his friends force him to do it and he's starting to realize it's wrong). (Wolverine from X-Men Origins Wolverine)


It's not really that hard to show why a good character would run with bad men.

[Cluedrew]

However, the same goes for trying to play a paladin in a party of thieves and murderers.

Now I want to play a paladin/rogue.

Personally, I think you can be disruptive with any type of character. My disruptive player stories have featured Lawful Good characters as often as it has featured any verity of evil character. (Equating alignment roughly, not all the games were D&D.)

Mind you I have had an experience with a regularly good role-player going off the wall and that involved an evil character. So maybe there is something else there but I'm not sure what it is.

[Keltest]

I'm not saying that evil characters are impossible, I'm saying that it's much easier for them to cause problems, that there are fewer tools to discourage them without going OOC.

Ok, a problem character is an OOC problem and should be dealt with OOC. Trying to deal with it in character sends the signals that yes, it is successfully annoying you, and it is not annoying you to the point where you will force a confrontation over it. Both of those are signals of success to a disruptive player.

Sure, you will occasionally have an inadvertently disruptive player, but the solution, as it turns out, is still to step out of the game for a moment and make it clear to them that the disruption must stop.

[Slarg]

I think youre confusing cause and effect here. The player is not disruptive because theyre evil, theyre evil because theyre disruptive. If you were to veto evil characters, they would find a different way to be disruptive. Theyre creating their character with the knowledge that it will end up creating problems, and no amount of DM restriction short of not allowing them to play is going to change that unless you confront them directly and tell them to quit doing that.

I'm not sure I agree with this. Part of the thing that makes a good DM good is the ability to roll with the punches; allow the players to do whatever they want, but make sure a set, defined, and constant series of consequences are known.

To pull it out of the Good/Evil dynamic for a second, If you have your players go into a "highly suspicious, highly religious town that likes to burn witches", the players really have no one to blame but themselves if they start non-discretely using their magic and get burned at the stake. It then becomes a side mission that they have to free the witch and flee town, or lose the party member.

Give your player a warning, ENSURE they have the signs they need to pay attention to even if they don't, and punish them for going out of bounds.

I found that players mostly were discrete about it, rather than fireballing the town square and complaining about being staked after the first time. "I told you, these people hate magic. Roll a new character..."

[Deepbluediver]

Except those characters do have moral boundaries, just not the typical ones. They value gold, they value fame, they value themselves. Play into those things, and a evil character is no more disruptive than a normal one.

The primary motivation most adventurers already have is to kill stuff, take its treasure, and become more powerful. Player's don't need to be evil to be mercenary.

Give me an example of an evil deed for an evil character to do (Don't even worry about being too over the top) and I'll show you how to roleplay that problem away. As long as you give appropriate consequences to all actions, you really don't have to worry about Fish-Malk syndrome.

An NPC shows up to a clandestine meeting with the party, bedecked in lots of shiny jewelry, as befits his status as the leading merchant-prince of the city. The evil character suddenly thinks his wallet feels a little light.

-Good character is trying to redeem bad guys. (Book from Firefly)

That only works up until a certain point- giving an irredeemable character an infinite number of do-overs is the hallmark of stupid good. What if the evil-player has stated he has no interest in ever being redeemed?
Pretty sure that Book would have dropped Mal or Jane in a second if they had actually comitted evil deeds in his presence. There was that one episode with the red-headed trickster lady and Book made sure to preemptively warn Mal away form any immoral hanky-panky.

-Good character is good, but has a fatal flaw that allows him to travel with evil characters (Is a nice guy with the "wrong" crowd; too cowardly to stand up to peer pressure). (Robin, Villains by Necessity)

Who did Robin Hood adventure with that was evil? He might have been chaotic good, but he wasn't evil, and I'm pretty sure both rape and murder were against the rules in his group.
In most versions of Robin Hood the Sheriff, the Prince, and anyone allied with them are Lawful/Neutral evil, and the first thing I'd expect an evil player to do is to look to either sign up with them or replace them, not hang out in the woods with a bunch of scrubby rangers.

-Lawful Good Character is too naive to understand what they are doing is bad, and a higher authority exists than his brother/friend. (Simone, Gurren Lagann)

I'm not even sure what this one means, unless you're saying I should tell the good player to just ignore the actions from the evil one.

-Good character is apprehensive about what bad guys do, and is slowly redeeming himself (Kills because it's what his friends do, but only when his friends force him to do it and he's starting to realize it's wrong). (Wolverine from X-Men Origins Wolverine)

I'd make the argument that so long as you're committing evil deeds then you're not Good. As soon as he started to question what was going on, Wolverine LEFT the bad guys. That's the exact opposite of what you were trying to prove.

It's not really that hard to show why a good character would run with bad men.

None of your example are the kind of thing I see very often in the actual D&D games though, and it's still putting all the pressure on the Good player to put up with the evil ones. If everyone wants to role-play equally, why doesn't this come to PvP (aside from GM fiat)?

[Keltest]

I'm not sure I agree with this. Part of the thing that makes a good DM good is the ability to roll with the punches; allow the players to do whatever they want, but make sure a set, defined, and constant series of consequences are known.

To pull it out of the Good/Evil dynamic for a second, If you have your players go into a "highly suspicious, highly religious town that likes to burn witches", the players really have no one to blame but themselves if they start non-discretely using their magic and get burned at the stake. It then becomes a side mission that they have to free the witch and flee town, or lose the party member.

Give your player a warning, ENSURE they have the signs they need to pay attention to even if they don't, and punish them for going out of bounds.

I found that players mostly were discrete about it, rather than fireballing the town square and complaining about being staked after the first time. "I told you, these people hate magic. Roll a new character..."

I don't generally consider ignoring the warning signs I put out as a DM to be the same thing as being disruptive. If theyre doing it deliberately to get the party in trouble, or after being repeatedly told by the party not to do it, that's one thing, but doing it out of a lack of paying attention is not generally disruptive unless they start really raising a fuss about it.

[Slarg]

I don't generally consider ignoring the warning signs I put out as a DM to be the same thing as being disruptive. If theyre doing it deliberately to get the party in trouble, or after being repeatedly told by the party not to do it, that's one thing, but doing it out of a lack of paying attention is not generally disruptive unless they start really raising a fuss about it.

True, but I find that most people have a hard time complaining about "My character is acting in character, he can't be punished for this" when you can counter with "These NPCs are acting in character as well, and they are punishing you". Cuts that problem off at the head.

[Deepbluediver]

True, but I find that most people have a hard time complaining about "My character is acting in character, he can't be punished for this" when you can counter with "These NPCs are acting in character as well, and they are punishing you". Cuts that problem off at the head.

Yeah, but my issue is that with a good character played well I wouldn't have had to punish them at all. With an evil character I'm going to constantly having to create scenarios where that player can't/doesn't-want-to do what comes most naturally to them.

A good character rides into a village that prohibits magic and thinks "hmm, how can I solve this issue without using magic?"
An evil character rides into the same village and thinks "I'll have to kill anyone who sees me using magic".

A "Good" character might think the same thing, but it's more out of place for them. A good character does it and I can call them out on being a disruptive player. An evil character could easily make the argument that it should be allowed for what I already gave permission for when I let them right "evil" on their character sheet.

[Keltest]

Yeah, but my issue is that with a good character played well I wouldn't have had to punish them at all. With an evil character I'm going to constantly having to create scenarios where that player can't/doesn't-want-to do what comes most naturally to them.

A good character rides into a village that prohibits magic and thinks "hmm, how can I solve this issue without using magic?"
An evil character rides into the same village and thinks "I'll have to kill anyone who sees me using magic".

A "Good" character might think the same thing, but it's more out of place for them. A good character does it and I can call them out on being a disruptive player. An evil character could easily make the argument that it should be allowed for what I already gave permission for when I let them right "evil" on their character sheet.

most evil characters are perfectly capable of restraining themselves from going around doing things like burning down orphanages or kicking puppies unless its very clear they can do so consequence free. Those who do not are not going to be evil characters for very long.

[Deepbluediver]

most evil characters are perfectly capable of restraining themselves from going around doing things like burning down orphanages or kicking puppies unless its very clear they can do so consequence free. Those who do not are not going to be evil characters for very long.

What's the point of playing an evil character then? What actions do you think you can take that the GM would allow that you would want to refrain from as a good character?

[Keltest]

What's the point of playing an evil character then? What actions do you think you can take that the GM would allow that you would want to refrain from as a good character?

Torture, for example? Murder? Remember, the key words above are "If they can get away with it". There are a great deal of things most PCs wont be able to get away with for one reason or another. There are an equally great deal of things where getting away with it is part of the fun. Assassination, for example. Torture.

You know what, someone shine the Evil Signal into the sky, Red Fel could explain this a lot better than this guy.

[Slarg]

Yeah, but my issue is that with a good character played well I wouldn't have had to punish them at all. With an evil character I'm going to constantly having to create scenarios where that player can't/doesn't-want-to do what comes most naturally to them.

A good character rides into a village that prohibits magic and thinks "hmm, how can I solve this issue without using magic?"
An evil character rides into the same village and thinks "I'll have to kill anyone who sees me using magic".

A "Good" character might think the same thing, but it's more out of place for them. A good character does it and I can call them out on being a disruptive player. An evil character could easily make the argument that it should be allowed for what I already gave permission for when I let them right "evil" on their character sheet.

I guarantee you, after the first time you make someone lose their level 17 Warlock because THEY were being dumb and they reroll a new character at level 1, their thoughts are going to be less "I have to kill anyone who sees me using magic" to "How can I cast this charm person spell without being caught/seen".

You have to condition your players to not be Stupid Evil, to where they will drag someone into a dark alley and torture them for information rather than set them on fire because they can.

Just trust me; go the extra mile and allow your player to be evil, but not stupid. It won't be disruptive after they get the hint, and they will enjoy themselves a lot more.

People who play Evil characters are the kind who want to do something and get away with it. Make a game out of "Getting away with it", and both of you are going to have a fun time. Start with a simple Wanted Poster scenario, where if they show their face they get arrested, but can use a cloak/mask/back alley way to still navigate.




One thing I find funny is a lot of DMs say "Make sure to create encounters for each player's unique skills so they can dominate that one encounter", but never allow Alignment to fall into that category as well. It's so much fun to allow the Evil Character to get info/items through unsavory means without the party knowing about it, only to say "Are you sure you want to know?" when asked how they got that item/info.

Give me an example of an evil deed for an evil character to do (Don't even worry about being too over the top) and I'll show you how to roleplay that problem away. As long as you give appropriate consequences to all actions, you really don't have to worry about Fish-Malk syndrome.

An NPC shows up to a clandestine meeting with the party, bedecked in lots of shiny jewelry, as befits his status as the leading merchant-prince of the city. The evil character suddenly thinks his wallet feels a little light.

Sorry, didn't see.


Clandestine meeting with lots of shiny jewelry? Does this merchant-prince know what Clandestine means?

-Evil Character knocks out Merchant Prince and steals stuff. If they were smart enough to actually conceal their identity (Unlike the baka MP), give it to them, or have the Merchant Prince rescind on a payment/agreement. Nothing better than doing the job like normal and being thrown in the dungeon and the keys forgotten because you pissed off your client.
-Evil Character kills merchant and steals stuff. Ensure they know they lost out on a chance for greater loot, even if you had no such plans to give them such. Greedy Evil will stay its hand at that.
-Evil Character kills Merchant, is seen doing so by an unknown onlooker, and is arrested.
-Evil character attempts to harm merchant, a signal is given and guards come out of the woodwork to prevent it. Smiling to himself because MP is smart, he asks if PCs have any more questions.

[Deepbluediver]

You have to condition your players to not be Stupid Evil, to where they will drag someone into a dark alley and torture them for information rather than set them on fire because they can.

Why do I need to condition them at all? Lighting people on fire and not torturing them are already things Good players know not to do.

Just trust me; go the extra mile and allow your player to be evil, but not stupid. It won't be disruptive after they get the hint, and they will enjoy themselves a lot more.

There are no RP games I've ever played where I thought to myself "I could be having so much more fun if only this stupid alignment restriction weren't in the way".

People who play Evil characters are the kind who want to do something and get away with it. Make a game out of "Getting away with it", and both of you are going to have a fun time. Start with a simple Wanted Poster scenario, where if they show their face they get arrested, but can use a cloak/mask/back alley way to still navigate.

I'm already running one game, I don't want to have to create a whole separate list of situations and encounters just to keep one player out of several entertained.

One thing I find funny is a lot of DMs say "Make sure to create encounters for each player's unique skills so they can dominate that one encounter", but never allow Alignment to fall into that category as well. It's so much fun to allow the Evil Character to get info/items through unsavory means without the party knowing about it, only to say "Are you sure you want to know?" when asked how they got that item/info.

Even as the GM there's only so much I can control- what happens when one of the other party members starts questioning the evil player and won't just drop it after a few skill checks?

[Deepbluediver]

Clandestine meeting with lots of shiny jewelry? Does this merchant-prince know what Clandestine means?

He's rich and smart, but with low Wisdom.

-Evil Character knocks out Merchant Prince and steals stuff. If they were smart enough to actually conceal their identity (Unlike the baka MP), give it to them, or have the Merchant Prince rescind on a payment/agreement. Nothing better than doing the job like normal and being thrown in the dungeon and the keys forgotten because you pissed off your client.
-Evil Character kills merchant and steals stuff. Ensure they know they lost out on a chance for greater loot, even if you had no such plans to give them such. Greedy Evil will stay its hand at that.
-Evil Character kills Merchant, is seen doing so by an unknown onlooker, and is arrested.
-Evil character attempts to harm merchant, a signal is given and guards come out of the woodwork to prevent it. Smiling to himself because MP is smart, he asks if PCs have any more questions.

Yeah, but all of these are things that end up making an enemy/corpse of a character who I wanted to be an ally for the PCs. It seems like to move the campaign along at all I just end up prohibiting the evil character from actually being evil.