Why forbid the play of evil characters?

[hamishspence]

A person can't ruin other people's life, rape, torture, sell people in slavery and then consider himself Neutral because after that he behaved well, even heroic. The damage is done and stays, unless he atone ( and atonement is not easy ).


So it's perfectly reasonable to have an Evil character who don't need to reaffirm constantly he's Evil: his closet full of skeletons does it for him.

After they have repented but before they have atoned, it's reasonable to say that such a person is "Corruption 9+ but Not Evil" - and elegible to be transformed into a Hellbred after death.

Evil is not wholly about one's corruption score - it's also about one's attitude to Evil deeds, including their own past ones.

[HeraldOfExius]

In my opinion, evil characters - expecially Neutral Evil characters - should be easier to play, not harder, because they are truly free to do what they want, including associating with as many neutral or good character they want.

This free pass to do whatever they want is exactly why people don't allow evil characters. Most people have an unfortunate tendency to play "evil" characters in a really immature way, where everything about them simply must be defined by complete disregard for all things good. Their actions are motivated by the concept of "being evil," which is dumb and annoying. Murdering innocents because you're evil doesn't really add anything, and other people will find it distasteful. Slaughtering the entire orc camp for revenge because orcs razed your village is evil (especially so if these were not the same orcs), but it's not much more disruptive than typical adventurer behavior.

[False God]

In Fiendish Codex it's stated clearly that the evil mortals do outweight their good deeds.

Why are you starting a discussion if you're just going to shut it down with "But the book says....!!!"

Either you're interested in an interesting philosophical discussion about morality in D&D, or you just want to play "gotcha" with forumers by asking a question you already know the answer to (or already have the answer you want).

{Scrubbed}

[Quertus]

Only on page 1, but most of the "reasons" given so far are half-right, at best. There *are* reasons not to allow evil characters, but they're not (most of) those given thus far.

Let's start with the OP.

1- Avoid plot derailing

OK, first off, "murderhobos" are usually "good". Second murderhobos usually work just fine with most published modules. So this is doubly not really a valid reason. However, there is a serious issue (or two) buried there:

1a- plot hooks

The character has to match the adventure. In particular, they have to match the plot hooks. So not all characters match all adventures. But that's a matter of personality much more than of alignment.

1b - bad adventure design

Some adventures are only written with "good" charters in mind, so their plot hooks only cover a very narrow range of characters. Which is especially bad when they don't telegraph this.

2- Avoid in game fighting

As others have hinted at, the classic Lawful Good Paladin is actually the biggest cause of in-game fighting at many tables. In fact, it's all but designed to encourage this. Yet people (foolishly) don't (usually) ban Lawful Good.

Having moral compunctions that can put the character at odds with the party is the reason that allowing Good characters is bad for party unity. Evil has no such compunctions, and thus is much better for party unity.

Whether you believe my propaganda or not (I *am* batting for team Lawful Evil, after all), the point is, evil causing in-game fighting is purely a player problem / social contract problem. It happens at least as readily (and I contend moreso) with good characters with actual personalities and conflicting values than with evil characters with personalities.

3- Good taste

This is definitely a social contract thing. After all, there are plenty of evil things that the party is fighting, right? So those "bad taste" things would be present, right?

Obviously, can they shouldn't be - and this is a feature of the social contract, not of a lack of villainous NPCs.

-----

However, to be fair,

I can come up with three absolutely lecit and reasonable reasons:

That said, what could be other reasons? If a player wants to play an Evil pc that 1- is not unhinged, 2- avoid backstabbing and is able to cooperate, 3- has enough common sense to avoid behiavours that would disturb other player's sensitivities, there are other reasons to forbid it?

Even the OP seems to admit that their reasons do not apply to *all* evil characters. So, although they don't explicitly say so, what they've given is no reason to ban *evil*, but to ban specific implementations / specific characteristics / specific characters.

-----

Which brings us to other people's bad reasons for banning evil:

1- Misunderstanding

This is actually the biggest reason people ban evil. They only understand one kind of evil - or their players similarly misunderstand evil - and so they throw the baby out with the bathwater, banning evil rather than calling out what they don't want.

2 - Laziness

I was tempted to include this under #1, but I feel that this deserves its own heading. Some GMs know that some evil is perfectly playable, but, because some isn't, they lazily throw the baby out with the bathwater, rather than banning the specific problems.

3- Motivation

Um… actually, good characters are usually reactive, whereas evil characters usually are much more self-motivated. So I'm not sure where this complaint comes from.

-----

Now, before I get into the actual reasons to consider banning evil, I want to call out this example reason to allow evil:

An Evil true friend is the kind of people who says:

" No, you'll free my friend now, no bargaining, or I'll not simply kill you. I'll torture and slay your family before your eyes while I flay you alive. Do you think I'm joking?"

Sometimes you want an Evil friend to cover your back.

See, evil will have your back, and do whatever is necessary for your safety. Good? Eh, they only kinda sorta have your back, until their morals get in the way.

-----

So, why should you ban evil?

1 - Maturity

Simply put, if you or your players cannot handle it maturely, then you probably shouldn't be playing with it, outside a one-shot to test to see if you've grown up.

2 - Theme

Sometimes, you really want the theme to be enjoy good heroes. However, I must point out, that needn't preclude evil characters: the Autobots had Mirage (lacked the empathy to understand why they were protecting humans) & Grimlock (who didn't care if the Earth was destroyed… until it was pointed out that he was on Earth), after all.

So theme is a "yes, but…"

3 - ???

Really, I got nothing. I thought I had a good reason to ban evil characters to close with when I started writing this, but it's slipped my mind. I may come back and edit it in later.

-----

Note: some modules really do punish Evil characters. But, then again, some modules really do punish Good characters, yet Good characters aren't banned from those modules. So I'm on the fence here.

[Conradine]

Why are you starting a discussion if you're just going to shut it down with "But the book says....!!!"

Either you're interested in an interesting philosophical discussion about morality in D&D, or you just want to play "gotcha" with forumers by asking a question you already know the answer to (or already have the answer you want).

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote.}

The OP discussion was, and is, about reasons for disallowing Evil Characters, not about the definition of evil character.
I didn't "shut it down" simply because I quoted the Fiendish Codex about the weight of good deeds vs evil actions.

I didn't know the answer of my question ( reasons to forbid evil characters ) and actually found several good reasons I didn't tought of.

Please, let's not flame a good thread.

Evil is not wholly about one's corruption score - it's also about one's attitude to Evil deeds, including their own past ones.

I agree. But I was talking about a character who did Evil in the past, never repented, still enjoy the benefits and has simply stopped doing evil now ( probably because he does not need to ).

Can we agree that if someone reach Corruption 9 and does nothing about it, no atonement and no repentance, even if he stops doing evil things he's still an Evil person?

[PoeticallyPsyco]

People often suggest that LE is the best type of evil for getting along with good characters. That's true to an extent; their evil is mitigated by their adherence to Law, to greater goals.

I posit that CE is just as good, or even better, at meshing with a group.

Take a look at the typical activities of an adventuring party: travel to interesting places, face interesting and varied challenges, and kill anyone who attacks them or who is otherwise in the way of the greater good (and can't be negotiated out of the way).

To most CE characters, that sounds like fun! More than enough fun to curtail their excesses, to conform to the moral standards of the rest of the party. While LE will work with good characters if it matches their goals, it can be tricky to incorporate them into a party because if the party's actions stop matching their goals, you'll have a problem. A CE character can have being an upstanding member of the party as their main goal, without ever conflicting with their characterization as Evil. Possibly my favorite character of all time, Locus, was defined by this, and was probably the most affable and devoted to party cohesion member of the group ("Exploring a cave full of vicious killer robots? Sounds like fun!" "Saving the world? Awesome, I love a good challenge." "Bandits attacking us? Oh, I'm going to enjoy this."). This does of course require a character both intelligent and capable of restraint... but that's true of any character expected to be consistently a team player.

It's essentially looking at the classic question "If this character does all these good things for completely non-Good reasons, are they good?" from the opposite direction. Of course they're not good, but that doesn't mean they're not an upstanding member of the party.

Side Note: This does run the risk of calling into question how Good the typical adventuring party's actions really are, if a blatantly psychotic character finds them so much fun. Depending on the group and the desired tone, this can be either an advantage or a disadvantage.

[Blue Jay]

Even the OP seems to admit that their reasons do not apply to *all* evil characters. So, although they don't explicitly say so, what they've given is no reason to ban *evil*, but to ban specific implementations / specific characteristics / specific characters.

I don't think this is a very productive way of thinking. Before the game starts, the DM doesn't know how the game is going to go, and any predictions he makes about it are going to be imperfect. So thinking in terms of absolutes like "all Evil characters" just isn't practical. He needs to think in terms of risks: he wants to maximize the chances of having a good gaming experience, and minimize the risk of having a bad experience.

People don't see risks in absolute terms, and it's unrealistic to expect them to. Risk is always relative to some baseline. For example, if the baseline is "there's a 10% chance that this game is going to be derailed irrevocably by some player being a jerk," then all it would take is for an Evil character to increase the chance above 10%: even 15 or 20% may be too much for the DM's comfort.

Obviously, the DM isn't going to see the numbers on that risk calculation, but he is going to see the various factors and try his best to judge the risks. And allowing someone to play an Evil character certainly does carry some measure of risk for the DM, especially if he doesn't know the player very well, for all the reasons that have been mentioned:

• Evil characters are more likely to act in ways that are difficult to plan for, potentially increasing the stress of preparing and adapting the story.
• Evil is more likely to be used as an excuse to justify toxic behavior on the part of a player.
• Evil is more likely to do things that will offend sensibilities of other players, especially if the Evil is on the part of the protagonist.

Doubtlessly, many DM's overestimate the risk that an Evil character poses to their game (and conversely underestimate the risks associated with paladins), but I think it's unfair to say that an Evil character isn't a legitimate source of risk for the DM.

[hamishspence]

Can we agree that if someone reach Corruption 9 and does nothing about it, no atonement and no repentance, even if he stops doing evil things he's still an Evil person?

Might depend why. If every corruption point they gained was a 1 pt act - done mostly for Good reasons (casting Evil spells to save people) - but he doesn't feel the need to atone for the spells themselves (being unwilling to admit to himself that they damage the mortal plane and the damage needs repairing and atoning for) - a case could be made that he's LN (yet still Damned To The Nine Hells) rather than LE.

"Balancing evil acts with good intentions" is the schtick of "flexible Neutral antiheroes" according to Heroes of Horror. I could easily see such a Neutral character racking up the Corruption Points for entirely good reasons.

[LordBlades]

Evil characters are more likely to act in ways that are difficult to plan for, potentially increasing the stress of preparing and adapting the story.

This is something I hadn't really considered before, but you're right :)

I've realized a long time ago that Evil campaigns tend to be more proactive and player-driven than Good ones, but I've never put much thought into how this translated to individual characters.

If you're running a typical fantasy setting, the world is generally all-right apart from the plot threads you put in. This means the status-quo likely satisfies most Good/Neutral characters, which makes them very likely to follow the plot and do little else, whereas an Evil character might find an opportunity to further his goals where the DM least expects it.

[icefractal]

I think there are three levels where an evil character might clash with a non-evil party.

Tactical - Some people take evil to mean "stab your party members in the back". This obviously isn't necessary or even plausible for most evil characters, but it is a thing people do. Easily solved at least - just don't do it.

Strategic - If the campaign is one where reputation and social interaction is important, and the rest of the group is trying to maintain a good image, then an evil character being publicly evil can screw things up like a loud barbarian in a group of ninjas. Even a canny evil character that keeps it secret is still adding a huge potential failure point that didn't need to be there. Some types of evil characters can still work with this, others can't.

Stylistic - If getting immersed in the characters and invested in what happens to the game world is a big part of the game, which it is to many, and the other characters are supposed to be relatively decent people, then aiding and abetting an evil bastard really undercuts the fun. Even if they successfully keep everything hidden, it's still a downer. Oh, we're not directly guilty, we're just the chumps who accidentally helped Hannibal Lecter torture some people - that's just great. This, I don't see a good solution to.

[Alcore]

This is something I hadn't really considered before, but you're right :)

I've realized a long time ago that Evil campaigns tend to be more proactive and player-driven than Good ones, but I've never put much thought into how this translated to individual characters.

If you're running a typical fantasy setting, the world is generally all-right apart from the plot threads you put in. This means the status-quo likely satisfies most Good/Neutral characters, which makes them very likely to follow the plot and do little else, whereas an Evil character might find an opportunity to further his goals where the DM least expects it.

(i think this slightly strays off topic but might be otherwise insightful)

And that is the Mentality problem that is mistaken for the Motivation problem that i will continue to call the motivation problem. For it still is that problem; the difference being that the player not the character suffers from it.


We are brought up needing only two motivations; "get gold" and "do good". You don't need both but the average GM is happy to have them for that means they can put most games in front of you and not derail it. Then, eventually, the itch to play something truly different comes up and we have an evil pc. Can't "do good" anymore with evil being just a word on the sheet and "get gold" is likely boring at this point.

So "do evil" is the most likely resort without putting more thought in. Player might not know the world so evil scheming can't be done without some planning with the GM. Some of my best evil came in established worlds (like golarion) and i could read about the political and social climate of nearby areas and make a PC with plans for those areas. Whether for petty vengeance or self righteous conquering it didn't much matter; i had the information i needed to make a compelling villain and give plenty of motivation to keep game on the rails;

Betraying the party is nice and all... but you have plans. You need the levels and riches the adventure brings. By the end you will even have good will and a safe place to retreat to if things go south. A place where your villainous title is "hero". Why rock the boat?



Then comes the end of the game. A neutral character might keep going for wealth. A good character might keep going to do more good. Both might say "screw it" and settle down with a wife and kids. Evil? He's got **** to do.

GM might not run that game but could easily narrate how his villainy succeded in the epilogue.

Come next game everyone might know who the big bad is...


But without motivations and a GM willing to allow the proactive evil to bend how his game goes it all simply self destructs.

[Ryton]

Similar to points that have been made, playing an Evil character in a Good themed game is probably going to take a bit of work from a good DM. The only Evil character I've played extensively was a LE warlock. I had to work with the DM to make sure we felt that the character had proper motivations to adventure with the party. Granted, he needed a Ring of Mind Shielding as so not to offend the sensibilities of the Favored Soul of Heironeous' Paladin cohort, but since we worked to understand the characters, with only a couple exceptional circumstances*, the rest of the characters might not have even realized. The other players knew, and were okay with it, which definitely helped too.

*The character opted to not accompany the rest of the party for a brief excursion to the plane of Celestia, one or twice uttered the Dark Speech, and there was the time he was the only one unphased by a Balor's Blasphemy.

[Jack_Simth]

I personally am completely for people playing evil alignments, i think it's actually more a misunderstanding of what an evil character is on the DMs part. It's like the DMs who just outlaw psionics because they don't understand it. They have a hard time grasping that an evil character would want to save the world.

Do keep in mind: A player with comperable misunderstandings is going to be similarly problematic. One of the things the DM will need to ID before permitting an Evil character in the party is "Is the player in question going to be a 'mature' evil or an 'immature' evil?"

Note that there's something of a catch-22 involved in this: Most DM's are going to have a hard time ID'ing how a given person will play evil until after the DM has seen that person play evil, but the DM needs to have a good idea about that before it's a good idea to let said person play evil.

Which makes it much simpler just to ban the alignment altogether.

[OGDojo]

The core rulebook says it, and despite the Book of Vile Darkness many groups / masters implement it even today.
But why, exactly, forbid the play of evil character?

Normally those three reasons are the basis for every alignment ruling, however the reason i limit alignment is mostlsy so that players will get along (or at least not stab each other in the back the first chance they get)

So i dont restrict evil unless we are playing a good campaign UNLESS one of the characters wants to be a saboteur, in that case i would allow for the evil alignment because having a character like that adds to the roleplay especially if they can do it right.

i have had entire Campaigns derailed because "I attacked the guard because im chaotic evil" was the excuse, the guards in my world are there to keep the city safe... FROM YOU!! if you attack them they will overwhelm you and overpower you. if you keep fighting they will do their duty and fight back until your dead or incapacitated.

[Quertus]

I don't think this is a very productive way of thinking. Before the game starts, the DM doesn't know how the game is going to go, and any predictions he makes about it are going to be imperfect. So thinking in terms of absolutes like "all Evil characters" just isn't practical. He needs to think in terms of risks: he wants to maximize the chances of having a good gaming experience, and minimize the risk of having a bad experience.

People don't see risks in absolute terms, and it's unrealistic to expect them to. Risk is always relative to some baseline. For example, if the baseline is "there's a 10% chance that this game is going to be derailed irrevocably by some player being a jerk," then all it would take is for an Evil character to increase the chance above 10%: even 15 or 20% may be too much for the DM's comfort.

Obviously, the DM isn't going to see the numbers on that risk calculation, but he is going to see the various factors and try his best to judge the risks. And allowing someone to play an Evil character certainly does carry some measure of risk for the DM, especially if he doesn't know the player very well, for all the reasons that have been mentioned:

• Evil characters are more likely to act in ways that are difficult to plan for, potentially increasing the stress of preparing and adapting the story.
• Evil is more likely to be used as an excuse to justify toxic behavior on the part of a player.
• Evil is more likely to do things that will offend sensibilities of other players, especially if the Evil is on the part of the protagonist.

Doubtlessly, many DM's overestimate the risk that an Evil character poses to their game (and conversely underestimate the risks associated with paladins), but I think it's unfair to say that an Evil character isn't a legitimate source of risk for the DM.

You raise some interesting points, and I'll see if I can (start to) bridge the gap between our perspectives.

-----

"there's a 10% chance that this game is going to be derailed irrevocably by some player being a jerk,"
"Evil is more likely to be used as an excuse to justify toxic behavior"

Yes, evil is marginally statistically more likely than, say, Lawful Neutral or Neutral Good to draw out **** behavior. Then again, "Paladin" is even *more* likely to draw out **** behavior.

Now, this is a matter of… personal technique… but I prefer to run a few one-shots, and I *encourage* things that can draw out **** behavior in those one-shots. That way, the group can discuss what they enjoyed, and what they didn't. If one player, their every evil character brings out the **** in them? Well, you know that you probably don't want them running an evil character (and, you can look at *how* they were a ****, and evaluate their other characters more carefully for signs that the *player* is actually a problem ****).

So, if I took a probability heuristic from my vast experience gaming, looking at what caused problems at various tables, I would ban… certain players. And certain combinations of players (who hate each other IRL, or whose styles are just incompatible, for example). Next, I'd ban Paladins. And Thieves (and Assassins). And Kender.

After that? Necromancers, Barbarians, Dwarves, Druids, Chaotic Neutral, and Good. Plus characters drinking, using drugs, fornicating, or missing limbs. Players who are best friends with or SO of the GM, and players who don't quote cool things like Monte Python probably get the axe at this point.

Point is, once you remove problem players, there's a *lot* of things IME that statistically prove more problematic than "evil". I find that to "maximize the chances of having a good gaming experience, and minimize the risk of having a bad experience", it's best to make it as easy as possible to spot toxic players. I want to remove toxic players, not make it easy for them to hide their toxicity.

But, sure, if you aren't me, and aren't willing to confront bad players, I guess you can try to do damage control by attempting to minimize the number of ways that they can hurt your game. I just don't cotton to that mindset.

-----

I fully agree that "Evil characters are more likely to act in ways that are difficult to plan for". That's an awesome bonus! The only joy I get out of running a game is the party surprising me. So, by your logic, for me, evil characters would clearly be more fun.

Those who prefer more structured / railroaded games may have other preferences.

-----

"Evil is more likely to do things that will offend sensibilities of other players"

I already covered this, but to reiterate: so should all the evil NPCs. This needs to be part of the social contract, or else the GM should do this all the time. So, this isn't anything inherent to evil (because evil should exist in most games, right?), but to forming and following the social contract.

-----

Anything still unclear as to what I meant?

Anything where you think I misunderstood you entirely?

(EDIT: and why did you consider what "not a productive way of thinking"? Do you still consider it so?) (Quotes added to the paraphrase to help make the sentence make sense)

[LordBlades]

So "do evil" is the most likely resort without putting more thought in. Player might not know the world so evil scheming can't be done without some planning with the GM. Some of my best evil came in established worlds (like golarion) and i could read about the political and social climate of nearby areas and make a PC with plans for those areas. Whether for petty vengeance or self righteous conquering it didn't much matter; i had the information i needed to make a compelling villain and give plenty of motivation to keep game on the rails;
[...]
But without motivations and a GM willing to allow the proactive evil to bend how his game goes it all simply self destructs.

Even if Evil characters keep their long-term scheming to a minimum, they're still way less predictable than Good/Neutral characters, which requires additional effort from the GM.

For example, let's say the party reaches a town, where a LG and a LE faction are struggling for control (actual example from a very successful Evil Dragonlance campaign I've played in). It's easy to anticipate what Good guys would do: ally with the LG people, vanquish the LE people. Evil guys however might ally with the LE people, or they might ally with the LG people, or they might just play both factions against each other to try to take over themselves, or they might bring in a neutral 3rd party to take them both out etc.

[FaerieGodfather]

Now, before I get into the actual reasons to consider banning evil, I want to call out this example reason to allow evil:

...

See, evil will have your back, and do whatever is necessary for your safety. Good? Eh, they only kinda sorta have your back, until their morals get in the way.

I like playing healers, because I find that kind of power personally gratifying. A nice side effect, however, is that it makes the other PCs (and the other players) more willing to tolerate my... stark moral worldview. The thing is, while my loyalty is never absolute and I can be disturbingly ruthless in pursuit of my agenda, my friends (mostly) understand that their wellbeing and more importantly their goals have become a part of that agenda.

I'm still utterly selfish. I just have a more enlightened and expansive sense of self.

Even if Evil characters keep their long-term scheming to a minimum, they're still way less predictable than Good/Neutral characters, which requires additional effort from the GM.

This is what I call the "Comics Code mentality", where "heroism" is defined as "maintaining the status quo" for Lawful Good characters... and Neutral Good characters... and Chaotic Good characters... and Neutral characters. We already live in the best of all possible worlds, so how can Good dream of making it better? Proactivity and ruthlesness, somehow, have become synonyms.

Personally, I think every character above a certain (9th-10th) level should absolutely have a grand, sweeping plan to change the world... the fulfillment of which is the beginning of Immortality.

[LordBlades]

This is what I call the "Comics Code mentality", where "heroism" is defined as "maintaining the status quo" for Lawful Good characters... and Neutral Good characters... and Chaotic Good characters... and Neutral characters. We already live in the best of all possible worlds, so how can Good dream of making it better? Proactivity and ruthlesness, somehow, have become synonyms.

Personally, I think every character above a certain (9th-10th) level should absolutely have a grand, sweeping plan to change the world... the fulfillment of which is the beginning of Immortality.

That is a very good point, however I was trying to hint at something else with the part you quoted: in general, Good has more boundaries than Evil. A Good character would only rarely, if ever, perform an Evil act willingly. Evil has way less moral issues doing a Good act if it advances their agenda. In the end, this translates into Evil characters having more options and therefore being less predictable. Some GMs don't like that.

[Asmotherion]

On a new group; Mostly to prevent "stupid evil";

Personally i allow it but with a few guidlines as to "why is your character evil" and a list of things that will get in game punishment; An unexperienced player is more probable to become a murderhobo if they believe their actions have no consequences than if they are aware that the more they stretch their "i'm evil for the fun of it" trope the more the DM is going to be biased against them.

Stab someone as an intimidation attempt? Cool. Stab every person who ever disagrees with you? Don't find it weird that some "random npc" you stabed was actually the grandson of a wizard 3-5 levels higher than you and tracs you for revenge.

For fairness i have a random table of things that may happen to your character and each "stupid evil" act increases your chance for a roll by 1 percent.

[Elkad]

Just kicked off the new campaign. Same players I've had for nearly a decade. Nominally Good, with the guy who plays "CE in check" and writes CN on his sheet and keeps himself under control.

I stole from MCPlank (who posts here as yahzi) and made XP a physical quantity, but I didn't tell the players that. And then told them "don't bother writing down alignments, I don't care about that".

They immediately went full murderhobo/evil. And then when they figured out the secret, they immediately started stealing/hiding XP from one another. One (the CN guy) has nearly double the total of the rest already.

I fully expect PvP to break out within a couple sessions. And the greedy CE guy won't be the one that starts it. I think he'll stick to murdering the NPCs they are supposed to be rescuing.

It'll be the rest of the party killing him. And either he'll get backstabbed in combat, or the other 5 of them will simultaneously CdG him in his sleep.

[ezekielraiden]

1- Avoid plot derailing
2- Avoid in game fighting
3- Good taste

These would be the main reasons.

That said, what could be other reasons? If a player wants to play an Evil pc that 1- is not unhinged, 2- avoid backstabbing and is able to cooperate, 3- has enough common sense to avoid behiavours that would disturb other player's sensitivities, there are other reasons to forbid it?

Because the overall campaign tone doesn't jive with it. I forbade evil PCs in the game I run. Not because I thought the players would be disruptive--they're all friends, I know them well enough to trust that they wouldn't do that--but rather because an evil hero doesn't fit in the overall world-structure I'm using.

Maybe a better way of saying that is, the "good taste" requirement is an agreement between the players not to do something that makes people uncomfortable. The requirement I'm talking about is, if you're going to actually be "evil" in any meaningful sense of the word--exploiting others for personal gain or to further your personal ends, regardless of the harm that may cause--then your character wouldn't be on the adventures I'm willing to run. In my campaign, someone who exploits others in this way would be one of the bad guys, and has enormous reasons to settle down, set up a "legitimate" business, and start working toward their evil goals full-time. Adventuring is a path to power, sure, but the real power in this setting is financial and institutional, and adventuring is mostly a hard counter to that. Adventuring means being disconnected from society for long periods, and sinking most of your money into equipment and travel expenses.

As an example, one villainous character dropped ten thousand dinars to get ahold of an artifact ruby (it's not magical, but it has major social/historical value)--despite the characters being nearly max level, they have at most collected 3k-4k dinars combined over their entire career, so this is an ENORMOUS amount of money. (I did specify that the aforementioned villain would have had to give up some of his fixed investments to do that a second time, but he had more than enough money to do it once. And he's definitely powerful and influential--among the most powerful people in the city.)

So my "precise reason" would be:
4. Because evil doesn't adventure, it hoards and insinuates and worms its way into power.

I freely grant that, in other settings/games, a character could adventure with evil motives. But I find real, serious evil doesn't adventure, it gets adventured against. When combined with your reason 3, it doesn't seem like there's meaningful room left for a serious evil character. They can't do the obvious, over-the-top evil stuff, because that is extremely likely to be in bad taste. And they can't do the subtle, encroaching type of evil, because that's the opposite of being an Adventurer, it requires settling down and building a power base. If you can't do subtle and you can't do grandiose, the only real option left is hardcore antihero territory, and let's be honest, grimdark edgelords are almost always incredibly boring.

So yeah. Evil that merits the name is either boring, in bad taste, or non-adventuring. Since I encourage my players to be none of those things, I also request that they choose not to play evil characters. Neutral characters, who may do evil or questionable things, are okay; if you choose to play a truly Neutral character on the Good/Evil scale, I will interpret that as you signalling to me that your character will engage in Dirty Business now and then and not feel too bad about it. Such characters can be healthy for an adventuring group, as they encourage the goody-two-shoes types to at least give a care for their personal well-being and for practical concerns, which are easily lost in the "BUT WE MUST SAAAAVE THEM!" stuff. A mixed Good/Neutral party is, IME, more enjoyable than a party solely in either camp.

[martixy]

The 3 reasons you listed are the classical ones.

You, however, listed the symptoms rather than the root causes.

The deeper reasons however is that 99% of people lack the understanding required to play an evil character; or see that character as a vessel for deriving a certain egotistical enjoyment of the game. They do not understand what it means to be evil, because they do not practice being evil on a daily basis. And because this is a game, and they've come to have fun, they cannot be bothered to engage their thinking caps to actually reason about what it means to be evil. Therefore you end up with the lazy version of evil we all know as "kicking puppies". Because it's not actual evil, but merely erratic behaviour, it ends up being disruptive for the game.

Which brings us to the second group, the one that hides behind their characters actions. Most times it's some kind of social power-play outside the game. They can be spotted fairly easily from the first group - the first group will cease when you point out how disruptive they're being, the second group will start arguing and defending their actions.

Because of the potentially disruptive nature of these characters, they are perhaps the ones where you need to work closest with your DM to make it work. But they can also lead to the most satisfying and dramatic moments in the game too.

[Mordante]

I'm actually thinking about playing an neutral evil bard in the future. If my GM allows it. She is not interested in doing honest work. Why work hard if you can seduce men into buying you gift.
Hopping from sugar daddy to sugar daddy. Promising them her body etc but each time they get close she disappears and if she gets the chance she will take a fair chunk of their money as well.

[Mr Adventurer]

I'm actually thinking about playing an neutral evil bard in the future. If my GM allows it. She is not interested in doing honest work. Why work hard if you can seduce men into buying you gift.
Hopping from sugar daddy to sugar daddy. Promising them her body etc but each time they get close she disappears and if she gets the chance she will take a fair chunk of their money as well.

This is a pretty shallow depiction of a stereotype that is often levelled at women; personally, I'd avoid it.

[ezekielraiden]

Missed this post originally, as I was just replying to the OP.

OK, first off, "murderhobos" are usually "good". Second murderhobos usually work just fine with most published modules. So this is doubly not really a valid reason.

Anyone who allows true murderhobos--people who indiscriminately kill, solely because the things they're killing happen to be in a dungeon, cave, or tomb--doesn't merit a Good alignment. If we're going to be taking Evil seriously, why should we allow caricatures of Good instead? Take both seriously.

1a- plot hooks

The character has to match the adventure. In particular, they have to match the plot hooks. So not all characters match all adventures. But that's a matter of personality much more than of alignment.

Alignment is a shorthand for personality. It's not perfect--the map is never the territory--but it is at least meant to be useful. I have only rarely had to discuss with players why they wanted to play Evil, and (almost) invariably it boiled down to a desired personality trait that wouldn't work with my character or the other players' characters in some way. (The "almost" is hardly a real exception--the char in question was very much a "at what point does an evil person decide to go good?" exploration, and he did eventually do so.)

But yes, I grant that "the character has to match the adventure." I find it extremely useful to tell my players, "No outright Evil characters." That succinctly communicates the kind of character personalities I am, and am not, willing to run for.

1b - bad adventure design

Some adventures are only written with "good" charters in mind, so their plot hooks only cover a very narrow range of characters. Which is especially bad when they don't telegraph this.

On the subject of "bad reasons," isn't this a bad one as well? Your problem is only when the adventure doesn't SAY that it was written for non-Evil PCs. That's just as much a non-reason as several of the ones you've had a problem with, because it only applies to a subset. Even if that subset is common, if you're going to quibble with reasons because they don't apply universally, that quibble should just as easily apply to your own reasoning.

2- Avoid in game fighting

As others have hinted at, the classic Lawful Good Paladin is actually the biggest cause of in-game fighting at many tables. In fact, it's all but designed to encourage this. Yet people (foolishly) don't (usually) ban Lawful Good.

Having moral compunctions that can put the character at odds with the party is the reason that allowing Good characters is bad for party unity. Evil has no such compunctions, and thus is much better for party unity.

Whether you believe my propaganda or not (I *am* batting for team Lawful Evil, after all), the point is, evil causing in-game fighting is purely a player problem / social contract problem. It happens at least as readily (and I contend moreso) with good characters with actual personalities and conflicting values than with evil characters with personalities.

I strongly disagree. Evil sees others as tools, exploiting others for their utility. Good--again, if we're taking it seriously, and not relying on caricatures--doesn't work that way; Good values other beings as ends in themselves, not merely as means. Serious Good should always at least try for unity and consensus, even when there is disagreement. Evil only does so if it is useful. That's a pretty serious threat to unity, as unity is most necessary when it restricts behavior.

3- Good taste

This is definitely a social contract thing. After all, there are plenty of evil things that the party is fighting, right? So those "bad taste" things would be present, right?

Obviously, can they shouldn't be - and this is a feature of the social contract, not of a lack of villainous NPCs.

You are neglecting the key difference between villainous NPCs and Evil PCs. A villainous NPC doesn't have personal agency behind it. They're not meant to be "equals" in the same way that the party members are to be equals. The party must, in at least some minimal way, "approve of" one another--there is no need to "approve of" literally any of the game's antagonists. So having a genuine serial killer (or manipulative loan shark or whatever other Evil you prefer) in your party? That means, at the very very least, you tolerate your allies engaging in that form of Dirty Business. That's uncomfortable for a LOT of people. It can drive people away from the game. Believe me, I have very nearly lost a group to that, and have several friends who *have* lost a group to it.

However, to be fair, even the OP seems to admit that their reasons do not apply to *all* evil characters. So, although they don't explicitly say so, what they've given is no reason to ban *evil*, but to ban specific implementations / specific characteristics / specific characters.

I have found that so many specific implementations, characteristics, and characters with the "Evil" tag have been a problem, that it is both easier and more effective to just tell players, "Please don't play Evil characters. If you want to play an Evil character, we can try to come to an agreement, but you're not going to be capital-E Evil, and there will have to be limits, otherwise I won't run the game for you."

1- Misunderstanding

This is actually the biggest reason people ban evil. They only understand one kind of evil - or their players similarly misunderstand evil - and so they throw the baby out with the bathwater, banning evil rather than calling out what they don't want.

Honest question: can you sketch some examples of anything else? There's a reason I said the only types of Evil I could envision were either inappropriate (serial killers etc.), non-adventuring (loan sharks, corrupt businessmen, etc.), or numbingly banal (grimdark edgelords). I'd genuinely like to see something that is still capital-E Evil that isn't one of those three things. It's unlikely, but at least *possible* that you could convince me to allow Evil characters in future games!

2 - Laziness

I was tempted to include this under #1, but I feel that this deserves its own heading. Some GMs know that some evil is perfectly playable, but, because some isn't, they lazily throw the baby out with the bathwater, rather than banning the specific problems.

I've seen, dealt with, and heard of too many problems with Evil. In fact, most of the LG examples you gave? Yeah, those are not LG characters in my book. They're Lawful Evil, but have it in their heads that they're actually LG. So you may see why some of your arguments not only don't phase me, but feel like a *defense* of my position. The alignment descriptors should not just be team labels. They should matter, have observable weight.

3- Motivation

Um… actually, good characters are usually reactive, whereas evil characters usually are much more self-motivated. So I'm not sure where this complaint comes from.

Why is "reactive" a problem? Motivation is simply the reason why you do, not whether you take the initiative. (Also...reactive and self-motivated aren't antonyms, so I'm super confused here.)

Good adventurers do what they do because they have an internal motive that isn't self-interest. They are drawn out of sedentary life by the need to help others, to stop harms to others, and to correct perceived injustice as best as they are able. Evil characters--at least, in my experience--are only motivated when it expressly and directly empowers or threatens themselves. Evil characters rarely, if ever, have the foresight or acumen to consider things like earning a positive reputation or gaining the loyalty of others, because that requires, y'know, being nice to people and being unselfish in the now. Intellectual Evil takes a long time to set up, and IME almost all players that play Evil don't want to wait months or years to get to call the chips and force their will on others--they want it, if not RIGHT NOW, then very soon. Ironically, because of this, Good is actually the *more* rewarding, *more* "instant-gratification," because you get the warm fuzzies for doing a good deed immediately.

See, evil will have your back, and do whatever is necessary for your safety. Good? Eh, they only kinda sorta have your back, until their morals get in the way.

Unless you aren't worth it. That's the crux of the problem, isn't it? Banal Evil--which is the vast vast vast (etc. ad infinitum) majority of Evil I encounter when interacting with TTRPG players--will drop you like a sack of bricks if it inconveniences them for more than a few minutes. Intellectual Evil will only invest in something up to the point where it continues to be a positive gain. The moment intellectual Evil realizes a "friend" is more trouble than they're worth? They'll drop you and never look back. Why should they? You're a calculable hindrance.

Good won't use literally every available means to acheive a goal, you're correct. I wouldn't *want* my allies to torture children in order to free me from unjust imprisonment. And I'm pretty sure most people wouldn't want that...so it doesn't sound like much of a problem that Good friends won't use literally every means, when a lot of the means entailed in that "literally" are explicitly unacceptable. And since Good friends are a lot less likely to apply a brutal calculus of loyalty...

So, why should you ban evil?

1 - Maturity

Simply put, if you or your players cannot handle it maturely, then you probably shouldn't be playing with it, outside a one-shot to test to see if you've grown up.

Certainly. I would argue that Evil requires a greater degree of maturity than Good, mostly due to that "I value people solely for their utility" problem, as opposed to the latter's "I value people in and of themselves." And that difference seems a good reason why you see Evil banned so often: immature players are more likely to cooperate and function if they are playing Good or Neutral characters than if they are playin Evil characters. Highly mature players will play any alignment equally well, but that means highly mature players have no impact on the decision whether or not to permit Evil characters. The immature ones heavily slant it toward Good (and specifically Neutral Good; both Chaotic and Lawful require caution and thought that the extremely immature often lack.)

2 - Theme

Sometimes, you really want the theme to be enjoy good heroes. However, I must point out, that needn't preclude evil characters: the Autobots had Mirage (lacked the empathy to understand why they were protecting humans) & Grimlock (who didn't care if the Earth was destroyed… until it was pointed out that he was on Earth), after all.

So theme is a "yes, but…"

Everything I know about these characters--which, I admit, is heavily drawing on a friend of mine who is EXTREMELY into Transformers--says that they are not Evil. Grimlock is either so mentally deficient that he's not *able* to think morally, or merely ambitious and demanding respect/justification in those continuities where his mind is strong enough to have moral thoughts. Mirage's lack of empathy certainly makes him non-Good, but lacking empathy doesn't automatically make you Evil--everything I can see, and have been told, about him instead says that he's either Unaligned, or perhaps Lawful Neutral, not really Evil.

[Tvtyrant]

Probably because alignment is badly defined at best, and Good includes a lot of evil people. Evil in D&D is basically cartoonishly evil, and cartoonish levels of evil don't add much to a game. Committing atrocities, betraying each other, etc.

Finding flimsy pretexts for killing people is already a good or neutral path in D&D, robbery is chaotic, Evil is confined to the really awful people. If they don't deserve to go to Baator, the Abyss, etc then they weren't actually Evil.

[D+1]

Probably because alignment is badly defined at best, and Good includes a lot of evil people.

If the latter is true then you're using VERY bad definitions of good and evil to be sure.

[PoeticallyPsyco]

Honest question: can you sketch some examples of anything else? There's a reason I said the only types of Evil I could envision were either inappropriate (serial killers etc.), non-adventuring (loan sharks, corrupt businessmen, etc.), or numbingly banal (grimdark edgelords). I'd genuinely like to see something that is still capital-E Evil that isn't one of those three things. It's unlikely, but at least *possible* that you could convince me to allow Evil characters in future games!

There have been a couple of excellent handbooks on playing evil characters of various flavors, including Red Fel's guide to Lawful Evil, Thealtruisticorc's guide to Chaotic Evil, and Mrs Kat's guide to Neutral Evil (which I haven't actually read yet, just figure I'd see if there was a NE handbook for completeness' sake and it turned out there was).

All of them have a list of archetypal character types within the alignment; of these, I'd say that (of the ones I've actually read) the best suited to PCs are, in descending order of viability, The Dark Knight (LE, motivated by friendship with their comrades to do the dirty work 'necessary' to keep them alive and well), The Dragon (LE, devoted to a master; as long as the master's goals align with those of the party you're pretty much set, and note that the master doesn't necessarily have to be evil), The Behemoth (CE, evil and flaunts it, bombastic and charismatic to smooth over affronts they cause with the rest of the party, as long as their personal goals require remaining on good terms with them). Really, a lot of these archetypes could be made to work, but I think the above three would take the least effort.



For basically any evil character in a campaign (even evil campaigns, if you want to maintain any semblance of party cohesion), you need to answer three questions. Note that there will likely be some overlap between the three answers, and ideally there will be multiple answers to each question for a given character.

1. Why does this character stick with the party? This can be because it benefits their mid-/long-term goals goals (slaying a dragon for its treasure is a lot easier with 2+ capable teammates by your side), because it's a short term necessity ("I hate you and everything you stand for, but if we don't work together we're never escaping this prison. Truce until we're all free men."), or because they have a genuine attachment to their party members (which is fairly easy to role-play forming during the other two motivations even if you don't start with it in place due to backstory). The Dragon joins the party to further their master's plans, the Behemoth could to further their own, and any character can stick with a party because they genuinely like their comrades and want to help them succeed (this is often the defining motivation of the Dark Knight).

2. Why do they toe the line? Any evil character in a good party is going to have to restrain themselves from acts of villainy, or party conflict is inevitable. The Dark Knight restrains themselves because a) they don't want conflict with their friends and b) because their villainy is almost by definition limited to the most extreme situations; they're defined by being willing to cross any line for the good of the cause/their friends, but they typically don't actually want to cross those lines (note that because they don't want to hurt their friends they will also often try to cover up their (arguably) necessary evils). The Dragon is evil not because they delight in kicking puppies, but because they are utterly ruthless in pursuit of their goals and don't care how moral they have to be to accomplish them; all the party has to do to keep them in order is present reasonably effective alternatives to evil solutions for a given problem and the Dragon will have no legitimate reason to execute their evil/pragmatic solution (even if they might want to, without a practical justification they'll yield for the sake of party cohesion). And any evil character with even a modicum of intelligence and intuition will avoid doing anything too evil if their goals require being a member of this good party.

3. Why does the party tolerate them? Especially if they do cross the line? There are many possible answers to this, but all the ones I can think of boil down to just three. Friendship; no one wants to leave their friend out to dry, no matter how justified it may be. Competence/respect; yes the character is evil, but their benefit to the team (and by extension the cause of Good) outweighs their few infractions. And redemption; good characters will want to redeem an evil character if it looks like that's possible (think Zuko; the boy burned a swath of destruction wherever he went and didn't even care about his own men at first, but who in the audience wasn't rooting for him to turn good from about episode 4 onward?). EDIT: One more; pure evil villains are fun, without sympathetic motivations, backstory, or concern for others to weigh down and complicate their raw charisma, and the sheer joy they take in what they do can be infectious.



Let's have an example. (Yes I am going to talk about Locus again; I know I already mentioned him upthread, but he's too perfect an example of an evil character meshing well with a party to pass up). Locus doesn't fit neatly into any of the categories I mentioned; he looks a lot like a Behemoth, but is constructed out of a mix of Broken (CE) and Hedonist (a CN archetype), with a little Experimentalist (CE) thrown in for flavor; or to put it more bluntly, he's a sociopath incapable of guilt, who doesn't really 'get' emotions other than fear or pain (though he's fascinated by emotions of all kinds), who has precisely zero regard for the sanctity of life - including his own - that can't be classified as "a child" (due to his backstory; won't go into it here because it's a redeeming feature and not part of his villainy), and who is motivated almost entirely by a desire to keep himself entertained. If I had to put an alignment on him, it would be Chaotic Evil, or possibly Neutral Evil.

Why does he stick with the party? Because adventurers are constantly going to interesting places and facing interesting challenges; that's basically Locus' dream job, with the added benefits that he's getting paid, doesn't have to do any research himself to find these interesting events, and is a respected member of society rather than being hunted down for being an engine of indiscriminate destruction (which is what would surely happen if he was forced to make his own entertainment).

Why does he toe the line? Because while he's dangerously close to being Stupid Evil, Locus is neither Chaotic Stupid nor stupid in general. As long as the excitement keeps flowing, he's more than happy to restrain himself to targets the party actually wants dead (or terrified, in a few memorable cases).

Why does the party tolerate him? Admittedly, a part of this is that the party was far closer to neutral than to good. It was partly because he was terrifyingly competent, tanking blows that would kill other party members (Locus didn't care how much damage he took because he wasn't at all afraid of dying), dishing out large amounts of damage, and ending any interrogations pretty much before they started (when your interrogator is 100% willing to cut off your face and wear it as a mask out of a belief that that would make you feel more comfortable telling him secrets, you spill the beans before he can so much as reach for his knife). Partly it was because he was fun, possessed of an infectious delight in even the worst situations, no matter how dire, no matter how gruesome. But mostly it was because he wasn't a problematic party member. He toed the line, his few slip-ups were both fairly minor (especially compared to the Chaotic Stupid also in the party) and accidental, he risked himself so his teammates wouldn't have to, and he was genuinely devoted to both the party's success and its cohesion; he was essentially the perfect party member, despite being blatantly evil.



So yeah, there you have it. Give the evil character reasons to join and maintain their relationship with the party, and have them give the party reasons to keep them around. Throw in a gradual but genuine friendship with the party members (even sociopaths are capable of forming emotional bonds with others) and a redeeming trait or two (for Locus it was that he was obsessively protective of children, to the point where you could legitimately consider him Chaotic Good when a child was in the picture), and you've got yourself a perfectly functional Token Evil Teammate.

[TheYell]

Hopping from sugar daddy to sugar daddy. Promising them her body etc but each time they get close she disappears and if she gets the chance she will take a fair chunk of their money as well.

You're probably playing with a bunch of nerds and they may not enjoy giving you the opportunity to role-play bad relationships repeatedly.

[ezekielraiden]

@PoeticallyPsyco

Alright. I'm going to, unfortunately, have to trot out a thing what makes tons of controversy, I suspect, but.

I have read through the entirety of the guide to Lawful Evil, and frankly? I don't see how the example archetypes fail to fit into what I've said. Each of them appears to be either:

• Not actually capital-E Evil. (E.g. the Dark Knight, the Bureaucrat, certain Executives and Aliens)
• Not actually an adventurer (the Executive, the Bureaucrat, the Prince, the Alien, the Dragon)
• Not in good taste (the Bad Cop, the Zealot)
• Uninteresting (the Cartoon, the unlisted immature types that I'll call "The Caricature," certain forms of Bad Cop)

And the problem frequently becomes that, when you pull something out of the row it's in, you run afoul of one of the other problems, or you drop the archetype. An actually-capital-E-Evil Executive or Bureaucrat treads on Zealot or Bad Cop--in other words, by becoming genuinely Evil, they run an ENORMOUS risk of falling into "uninteresting" (Caricature/Cartoon). If you remove the Dragon from the sedentary power structure, is the character still in that archetype? I'd argue no. Etc.

(As an aside: the Rival is extremely interesting, and a GREAT concept for a villain...who pretty much explicitly can't be someone in the party, because the archetype specifically requires opposing the party in a particular way. One could argue that, for example, Zuko from ATLA is The Rival up until his Heel-Face Turn--and the moment he joins the party, The Rival ceases to apply. This is an unusual example of #2--"not actually an adventurer"--that features no connection to an in-place power-structure at all, showing that it's not strictly about not being part of a power structure, but rather not having the characteristics that fit with being in an adventuring party. The Alien may also fit this mold, as if they're genuinely Alien, it's hard to see how the party and the Alien can have reliable points of agreement--being Alien necessitates very few, if any, such points of agreement.)

Part of the problem is...that guide has an excessively loose perspective on Evil. The author keeps using the phrase "arbitrary alignment," but fails to define it anywhere, and as a result I keep feeling REALLY confused when the author calls things that look objectively Good as "Evil" solely because they...actually strive for their goals rather than faffing about?? Like, here's a quote.

Dark Knights are a wonderful choice in a party, even a party of Good characters, because they tend to put others before themselves. One would think this a fairly un-LE trait, but arbitrary alignment being what it is, it works. To make such a character even more compelling, consider making him a gentle soul, inwardly mourning each step he feels he must take to protect that about which he cares.

If that "inwardly mourning" is genuine, the character has to be (at least eventually) on a trajectory to non-Evil. Evil doesn't--can't--repent, can't even desire repentance, by Red Fel's own logic (the part about "Apologies" and how Evil never gives them because Evil "knows" it is right, and you never apologize for being right). So...if they actually do put others before themselves, and actually do mourn their actions, I can't see them as Evil. So any Dark Knight, as far as I'm concerned, is either on a course for shedding her Evil (meaning I can't really call her capital-E Evil), or on a course for sticking to that Evil until it's revealed as a betrayal of trust. That betrayal is exactly an "in bad taste" situation, because I am emphatically against PCs betraying PCs, even in well-meaning ways, and will not facilitate such betrayal.

So...yeah. I stick to my original claim. A character that is truly Evil, Evil worthy of the capitalized name, is either a non-adventurer, doing things that are in bad taste,* or cartoonish/uninteresting. A character that starts off in one of those categories, and then tries to break out of it, will inevitably fall into one of the others...or fall out of Evil-worthy-of-the-name.

*Note that I completely disagree with Quertus' assertion that actions by NPCs and actions by PCs have the same weight when it comes to bad taste. Because NPCs aren't required to be friends/associates/comrades, they can do things that the players disapprove of. There isn't another player's agency behind that NPC, and the PCs aren't implicitly endorsing that NPC's behavior because they don't adventure together. By adventuring together with a PC who does these things, they are tacitly communicating, "I'm okay with this," and that squicks a lot of people out in ways that NPCs never will. E.g. you can have slavers as your NPC villains, and that's fine, because that means the party can stand united against slavery. But if one of the PCs is a slaver...even if they never do any slavery stuff in front of the other PCs...those other PCs are essentially saying, "I'm okay with what you do. I won't try to stop that from happening." And that implication, exclusively present with intra-party characters rather than out-of-party characters, is what makes all the difference when it comes to the "bad taste" problem.