"Why are you helping us? Weren't you trying to kill us in the last arc?" "First of all, I live here. I can't very well pack up and move to a new world if this guy destroys the entire planet. Second, I kicked all your asses like six times before you actually took me down, and this dude makes me look like a schoolyard bully. I don't trust your capability to handle this situation by yourselves. I need this mission to succeed, and you need me to not die trying. So shut up and let me help you so I can get back to trying to kill you for stopping me last time."
My group’s essentially evil thieves guild (disguised as a jewel cutter’s guild) once saved the city from an invasion under the the pretense of “HEY YOU BASTARDS! THOSE ARE OUR CUSTOMERS!!”
I once legitimately had a group of PCs who were upset at an antagonist for framing them for a crime they DID commit. ("There's no way they could have actually known it was us! We've been framed!")
@@michaelramon2411 so, frame him back, its not like you are lacking incriminating evidence considering you were litterally there. Just convince the rouge to give up some trinkets he pocketed that aren't plot essential so you can plant them in his house/person for a dramatic reversal. Just don't get caught doing this second crime of framing which requires breaking and entering and/or reverse pickpocketing.
@@jasonreed7522 Well, the "crime" was killing the warlord's son, so a bit harder to plant evidence there. And the "framers" were a major element of the government, so a bit more trusted by the warlord than random gladiators/PCs. The party did put some efforts into false flag attacks and trying to turn the warlord against that faction (and that faction against one of its members), but their ability to get into trouble with the government expanded faster than their ability to frame others.
+Scout Used Bonk! There are Good-aligned dragons that could be held hostage of princesses of powerful might and magic. It would make for good adventure stories.
Seriously who wouldn't want to save Smaug from those evil dwarves, He is all alone in that grim Hall of His He just needs a good hug and a tea. Think about it, wouldn't You be a little nervous when small little things are crawling on Your bed, on Your head or in Your home when You are sleeping. And above all else, You know those little things have been specifically planning to invade Your home. Think about colonies of spider-ants holding everlasting grudges against Your very existence, and planning a vendetta just for the sake of it? I would be pissed off, and for that matter, would You lower Yourself to talking to spider-ants and trying to persuade them against invading Your home, naaah You would more likely use Your portable flamethrower....I would. Smaug is one of us. Save one of us from evil. Burn dwarves, be good.
“If you can’t explain why the Villain is the Hero in his own story...you don’t know your Villain well enough.” - I don’t remember who said that, but it was a famous author.
my villain isn't the hero in his story. his end goal is to create a zombie lord from the corpse of a dead god in the astral sea so that he can add a third faction to the eternal war between devils and demons because he feels neither of them really "get" evil. finding a way to reanimate enough hit dice to template a god corpse was the tricky part but i figured it out. also this isn't a vilian but a pc in a pathfinder game.
ymmij X He's the "hero" of evil. As far as he's concerned, the other factions are a disgrace to "evil", (think Yami Bakura's opinion of Marik), and so he's the hero of his story because he is bringing honour back to evil. Clearly in the overarching story, he's evil, but to him, he's the hero. Admittedly, the hero of evil, but hero nonetheless.
This right here is how i build my villains, I like to ensure the villain can convey his reasoning and motives in a way that he can confuse and tempt "good" characters, leading to not only an epic fight, but also a questioning of the players morality.
I don't think a villain needs to think themselves a hero in that they believe themselves to be "good"; they just need to see themselves as the *protagonist* of their own story. "I want power, and I'm willing to kill people to do it" is a perfectly valid motivation for a certain type of villain; it's just not the ONLY type of villain, by a great margin. You know who's an AWESOME bad guy despite being an utterly terrible and entirely selfish person who doesn't believe himself to be righteous in the slightest? Ob Nixilis, from Magic the Gathering. Look him up, and read his stories; he rocks.
John Wick was a murderer. People seem to forget that part. That puppy was innocent and the last gift from his dead wife. All animal abusers must be destroyed. Even Orcus agrees with this 😁
Orcus: Okay guys, you know, there's evil and then there's just mean! This is NOT what we're about. Yes, I intended to rend all life from the multiverse, but we are NOT going to just be mean!
“Darling that orphanage you just burned down was the sole reason I’m not in jail. By being it’s greatest donator the guards where unwilling to confront me for my various preemptive strikes. Now that you’ve done this. We’ll have to get rid of the guards as it where. I can at-least trust you to do that Now can’t I?”
I had a player in an old game whose character wasn't "evil", but rather more of naïve idiot. He was a Warforged in Eberron, literally built only to fight and who perceived the world entirely in that binary. The player himself was also a bit of clown who would make jokes about how his character would set fire to an orphanage because he didn't want the orphans to be cold on a winter night, only to have one of his compatriots explain, _"fire kills people!"_ In shocked horror at the realization of what he'd done, he would charge into the fire to rescue the orphans hugging them close to his spike covered body to keep them safe from the flames, only to then be just as confused why the children were now leaking red oil all over him.
Chiara Rossi I’ve known evil people. People who do bad things because they’re bad things - not for any gain but in defiance of what they themselves know to be right. Not for attention, not for defiance sake, but because it was an evil thing and they felt it made them stronger and even felt good to do. Evil exists, most people deny that. I’ve known evil much of my life.
@@twilightgardenspresentatio6384 They absolutely did it for their self interest, and while Chiara is wrong that evil does not exist, people are not by nature evil or good, they preserve their self interests. If your self interest is destruction and the lust for destruction, you'll act evil. But if suddenly that lust for destruction is replaced by guilt, they'll act good.
RVNS That’s not at all what Chiara was saying. I’ve read that book, and the point (or at least my interpretation of it) is that people as a whole aren’t either good or they are evil, though there are people who exemplify each. People are, at their core, varied. Most people will do good things, and bad things, and better things, and worse things. Not necessarily in balance, either, as one may take from my phrasing. Some people are reprehensible, and I would call them evil. But *people* are not evil. Some people are unbelievably good, and I would call them that. But *people* are not good. People are - all that people are - is people. Also most people don’t purely pursue their own self-interest, and that’s a pretty modern and reductive take spread to justify an otherwise unjustifiable economic system, but heyyy, I’m on a soapbox now, I’ll get off it.
@@twilightgardenspresentatio6384 Normal people do that all the time. There is a unique satisfaction to doing something for no other purpose than flaunting the law.
@@buggoth that’s not true, if guilt was enough to make a man good, no nazi would’ve shot a pregnant Jewish woman in the head, when they knew they were wrong. They continued for many evil reasons, they took every step to get to that point freely, but guilt certainly didn’t stop them, even though it certainly came up for most of them. Same with the gulags in Russia. One of the primary reasons for gulags and mass murders were because the communists could not allow dissent, because anyone who dared disagree with them was proof you could disagree with them, and by the very existence of such a person reality was judging the horrors committed by the communists. They had plenty of guilt, and they solved it with murder.
I don't know who this guy is, it was just in my recommended. His weird beard made me stay to gawk, and his golden radio voice, eloquence, and cadence made it great.
I think a mistake a lot of people make when creating evil PCs is going overboard with their idea of what constitutes evil. I'm currently playing my first evil character. She was trained as a Necromancer under the tutelage of her father. (Who was a genuinely pretty good guy, despite studying Necromancy) When their village discovered his Necromancy lab, they lynched him. After that, she ran away from home with his Necromancy tome to continue his research and, one day, return to her village with an undead army and take revenge on the people who killed her dad. Yea, she's evil. Revenge is an inherently selfish and destructive motivation. But that doesn't make her a completely unlikable or irredeemable character. Her motivations are evil, but she's a sympathetic character. I think a lot of people forget that evil can be sympathetic.
Sarcasm aside, even completely horrifying monsters can be sympathetic. You can share hilarious jokes and make best friends while enjoying long-veal from the little hamlet burning in the distance over a cozy cookfire. You can show your love by sending your beloved a leather dress made from the skins of everyone who has truly wronged her (how romantic!). You can be a completely insane CE monster and still be a person.
The latest evil guy I played was a self-serving, lazy and cowardly Elf Wizard. He only took spells that made life easier for him, and gave him greater chance of survival, like Invisible Servant, Tiny Hut, Mirror Image, etc. He only played hero because he liked the perks, like fame, money and women. The party tolerated him because he made life easier for them. Especially after getting the Magnificent Mansion at 11th level. But the most evil one I played was in aD&D2e, an evil Cleric of the Death God who wanted to betray him and take his place. He was the classic over the top, cartoonishly evil character, and a lot of fun to play.
Committing acts of "evil" against evil characters is not evil though, that is chaotic good, revenge is only selfish in that it is the act of causing harm for the sake of a personal feeling of satisfaction. But revenge as a motivation can lead to ultimately good things, such as carrying out justice, or stopping an evil character from, well, being evil, etc.. It is only evil when it leads to harming innocent people who did nothing to deserve being harmed, such as those who had no hand in harming others who did not deserve to be harmed, etc.. So, committing acts that would otherwise be considered evil are in fact good if they are committed against an evil character, as long as they do not cross the line into true evil by directly and intentionally harming innocent people. Two negatives make a positive, and that's simple math, I don't care if people think "two wrongs don't make a right". If it is a decision between doing nothing and allowing an evil character to inevitably go on to commit more acts of evil, or killing that evil character thus preventing them from inevitably hurting an indefinite number of innocent people, then doing nothing is doing evil through apathetic inaction while killing that evil character is doing good through preventative action.
@@NODnuke45 I think you're getting two concepts mixed up. Wanting revenge and preventing evil may go hand in hand in some cases, but they are independent of each other. You could go after a villain to stop innocents from getting hurt without feeling malice towards the villain or satisfaction in killing him. Similarly, you could go after the same villain because he personally hurt you without any care for the innocents that he endangers. One action is good, the other is neutral or evil depending on the circumstances. My necromancer, for instance, plans to lead an undead army to kill everyone she feels is responsible for her father's death. But does a whole village deserve to die for one injustice? They're not necessarily bad people. They thought they were doing the right thing by lynching a necromancer, even though he was a good man. I would say that is an evil motivation.
"I had to do it, don't you see" That was good. Good delivery, good line. It really evoked a feeling of evil for me. The best villains in stories always think they are working towards some greater good. Or at least they convince themselves.
I always viewed it as them trying to convince themselves. I think this is espessially true with the character judge frollo in the hunchback. Espessally with the scene hellfire. Where he constantly says one thing in English, and than the choir of spectral monks say the reverse of that in Latin. In English Frollo trys to say it's "not his fault" to which the monks say "my fault" I always thought that was exception.
@@irontemplar6222 I agree that it's sort of a combination of both: they're convincing themselves and have the thinnest line of separation from reality - so they are constantly and desperately trying to convince themselves of their motivations while simultaneously completely certain they are right. "it's fine and everything's okay because once I succeed, none of this will matter. All of the horrible things I've done will be forgotten when you see what I'm striving for." Bonus: watching them fail and realize that none of their atrocities will be swept under the rug, even in their own mind. They don't get to forget because they did not succeed.
I once ran a party of 6 evil characters. The 4 LE killed the CE barbarian and the NE rogue sat back and drank while they did it. Then the LE cleric animated the dead character as a zombie. It was great.
CE is a Bully that needs a high Detect Noise / Listen skill ranks to notice the Back Stabber. Drow = high culture Orc = Mexican / Russian drug runner ?
"You think you defeated me. You think I did not know what I bought for my Wanna" -the dying words of Dr. Yueh. He didn't think he was going to be able to save his wife. He knew that the best he could hope for was an end to her torture.
Stop pretending that we don't want long videos from you. Just because the rules of the internet say to keep content short doesn't mean you have to follow them. Breaking the mold like you did here is refreshing and informative. Heck we sit through 4 hour dnd sessions on youtube, 30 min isn't risky... it's AWESOME!
I don't mind long videos, but I do mind wasted time. Matt is always quick and to the point, I get more out of his videos than many a 'tuber who pad their run time for the algorithm. I imagine, though, that you don't get as quick as Matt without editing some stuff out of the script, to be picked up later (or not).
I'm more annoyed with people who label their characters "good" yet do all manner of evil things and just say ooh man I'm only "chaotic", screw that, planing to kill an entire ship and crew just because the npc captain locked you up in the brig after you try stealing everything not nailed down is not "Chaotic" its evil plain and simple. And I would respect such a player more if they just said that they were evil.
Gotta separate actual morality from DND alignment. The latter's not about what people think of you or what you do; it's about what 'side' you're on in a cosmic cold war. If you kill an entire ship's crew because a ship's captain locked you up for theft, you're cosmically aligned with evil, no matter how good you think you are, and if the player character isn't aware of that, they're probably not taking the game world seriously. Which is fine, depending on the style of the campaign, but I'm assuming that Geraduss is talking about a campaign that's meant to have a realistic flavour to it?
Evil has a lot to do with why the character did a thing. If you poison the minions of the obviously evil duke so you can rescue the wives and children of a village that he was going to sacrifice to his evil god tomorrow, does that make you evil? Some people would say yes, any use of poison is evil, no argument. The use of a thing makes you evil, not your intent. What if you murder someone by giving them sugar when they have diabetes? Giving people sweets isn't an evil act, so no, not evil. Again, the use of the thing is not evil, even though your intent was to murder, so not evil. It was worse back in 1E days when DMs had -1 experience in role playing.
Indeed; that is the Chaotic Stupid alignment :D sane evil characters have a very good reason and an ultimate noble end goal for what they do, in their own minds. The objective good and evil alignment of the universe may disagree though; "Jergal casts Detect Evil and scoffs with apathy at your hope for a peaceful afterlife". Your deity might "rescue" and promote you from the fugue plane, but few people do enough for this to happen; the rest may prefer making a deal with the devil(s).
Reyn Time that’s lawful evil that will murder that dude for no reason. Chaotic evil characters are likely anti-heroes when you find them. They just may commit a few crimes along the adventure. “I know there is good I know there is evil I choose to be evil”. That’s lawful evil, typical of undead... undead and lawyers! Oh, the eighties are back!
"Chaotic Evil means murder that dude just cuz. If you can do it without getting into more trouble than its worth, have a reasonable belief that that dude can't get you anything you want later, and don't have anybody more important that you want to kill right now.
I'm pretty happy with this video, even though it is very long. Obviously there's more to talk about. If we did an Evil PCs II, we'd talk about actual behavior, what behavior would we expect from an Evil PC and what's reasonable? I think the Wednesday Night Discussion will inform that video.
Matthew Colville this is a great starting point for the discussion on running evil campaigns. Thank you Matt you are to D&D what Alan Watts was to existential thought; a wonderful teacher who inspires with anecdote and raw experience. Matt I hope you re-read my comment at some point. I must make an addendum to this. You truly are a river to your people.
Damnit Evil Matt, I was getting close to finishing the first season of Critical Role thanks to the time gap of your content. Now I must put CR on hold to watch this video, lol.
I like it a lot! I want my players to play the interesting characters they want as long as they can bond and be with the group. I like that you acknowledge that 5e is geared towards the hero. Mechanically, there are some spells and abilities that suggest evil and good in D&D is more black and white, such as Detect evil and good, protection from evil and good, etc. I'll show this to my players for the next campaign. Great video!
Daeklan: So... What are you in for? Falkras: I was framed for the murder of Lord Vargen. D: You didn't do it then... You didn't kill him F: Oh, I did the deed alright. D: I don't get it... How were you framed then? F: The evidence they used to get me for it was planted. I never leave a trace on my mark, but aye, I spilled the blood. It's the sort of thing that happens when you put a bit too much trust in a lad that's a bit too ambitious for their own good. Looking to correct that mistake soon enough. You definitely can be framed for a crime you committed ;)
There are lots of historical examples of people being framed for crimes that they did commit too. Some historians believe the Reichstag fire is an example
*bakes cake and gives it to party.....party bites into it cake and spits it everywhere* Warrior "i thought you said this had no raisins in it" Me "i lied!" *evil laughs"
I tend to consider law/ chaos not only as methods of expressing good/ evil. You might be chaotic because you are suspicious of hierarchy and the current system of government but also evil because you are deeply selfish in your personal life(for example) . You dont have to be the joker or a goblin to be chaotic evil. Also, not all characters express both sides the the axis with equal fervor, you can be sorta into law but far more into being good and be LG
The DnD alignment system is downright broken, in a completely non-mechanical way. It's also mechanically useless: I refuse to play a system with 9 alignments that dictate or predict or classify character behavior.
tbh a convincing Good character is even harder to play than an Evil. Most people who 'play' Good are actually being closer to Neutral. It takes passion.
Yeah to truly play a good character you need to play the sort of character who is fully aware of the sort of evil they could or even would commit, but actively chooses to not cross those lines (Someone whho has successfully integrated their shadow, if you haven't done this your just an altruistic neutral character). Someone who while not adverse to receiving rewards is typically motivated by a desire to improve the lives of those around them. Not a flawless character but a character who is all to aware of their own flaws, and actively seeks to overcome them. The sort of person who hears the words "For the greater good" and questions whether any goal that requires such sacrifice can ever truly be good. Not someone who will never sin, but someone who strives strike closer to the mark every time. In short playing good is more like playing an evil character (In that they are all to aware of the evil within themselves aswell as the way's of wicked men) who is actively trying to not only, not be evil, but to be good. If that makes any sense whatsoever.
I imagine it would be very difficult for a sound minded and morally righteous person to venture into dangerous territories, slaughter the inhabitants by the score, then go back home and get a peaceful night's sleep! That sounds like the actions of a sociopath, rather than a healthy individual!
Doing Neutral right is hard too. You have to decide what your core motivation is, since you are rejecting the very concept of good and evil. Basically you have to invent your own ethical code from scratch to fit your agenda, and it's hard to follow it consistently. Mind you, Neutrals _are_ often inconsistent from an observer's perspective, because the observer is trying to analyze them through a conscience, when the observed simply may not have one.
For about a year I played in an evil campaign with all evil characters in a kind of Ultimate Evil "thieves guild" scenario. Our characters were low- to medium-level operatives in a brutal crime organization headed by extremely powerful Illithids. The goal of that organization was to amass all the magical power in the world for its own purposes. As reward for dutiful service, some of us were "gifted" with horrific, yet practical body modifications that granted special powers. These mutations accumulated over time with successfully completed missions, and gradually converted us into horrific monsters. But we didn't care. Like gang members with facial tattoos, our shocking appearance signified our status and commitment to the organization. Plus, the increase in sheer power depreciated the loss of our humanity. Through our many adventures, we screwed each other over quite often when it came to hoarding treasure or breaking ranks when the battle turned against us. But we also knew that each of us relied on the rest of the team for survival. Plus we were all greedy as fuck, and we knew there was treasure at stake. So the party usually had enough cohesion to get us through the end of the current fight. Over time, some of our characters found genuine respect and friendship for each other despite their individual selfish inclinations. Of course the entire campaign ended in a TPK, with our organization turning against us and hanging us out to dry for some unethical thing we'd done that pissed off a powerful foe. Earlier in the year we'd discovered an island that was home to an enormous dragon hatchery. So we made a business pitch to our bosses, to capitalize on the situation by opening a hunting lodge for rich adventurers to hunt young dragons for sport. Eventually that misdeed caught up with us, and the dragons came calling. Our organization negotiated with the dragons by betraying us, sending us off to sea on a rendezvous in which every last one of us got brutally savaged by an ancient gold dragon. So yeah, evil can be fun too!
"If you wish to write a grand opera about a prostitute dying of consumption and a garrote, I suggest you contact Mr. Gibson in Oslo. I'm sure he'll be able to furnish you with something suitably dull." There's something powerful and entertaining about your voice and lexicon.
I accidentally ended up playing an anti-villain: One of my favorite characters was a young girl, named Adrienne. She was a tiefling warlock, raised by an evil cult that had been destroyed by paladins. This sounds like a setup for a character who was "rescued", but that's not how Adrienne saw it. Her entire family and half the followers of her religion had been killed. She was a good child, and believed fervently in the faith her family had brought her up in, and so she wanted to carry out the quest of that religion, raise her cult from the dead and finish returning Tharizadun, the Chained Oblivion to the world. To do so, she started going on quests to accumulate money and power. So, the party went on a quest. We raided an ancient tomb inhabited by a vampire. We slew him and returned to the city with the sword we had been tasked to bring to the wizard who had given us the quest. Except, first, we decided that it was a good idea to have it identified. So, on the way into town, we got a shop owner to cast identify and were told it was a Luck Blade. Most of the stats were relevant, but not significant. However, it let you cast Wish 3 times. A discussion broke out regarding what to do. Some people wanted to keep it, some sell it, some bring it to the wizard. I told the DM "I put my hand on the sword." No reaction. Then "I cast Thunder Step 90 feet straight up, then I cast Fly and book it." Suddenly the table went silent. "Sorry." An explosion rang out in the shop, all of my "allies" were scattered away from Adrienne as she first teleported out of the shop, then flew like a bullet as far away as possible... with her three wishes. The rest of the party was so pissed off, I started planning follow up adventures that would see the remaining party need to track down Adrienne and stop her and her demon familiar/teddy bear "Fluffy".
Reminds me of one of the great RP moments in Critical Role's first campaign - the arc was done, the party beaten and weary, and one PC grabs the loot and leaves to everyone's shock.
The problem many players have when playing an evil character is that they think they are supposed to be evil toward the other members of the party (and players who have been screwed over by their fellow player with an evil PC don't want to experience that again). But any character (note: character, not player) with an even slight amount of intelligence will see the other party members as useful components who will enable them to reach their goals. Why steal a small amount of gold from a fellow party member when that party member is likely to spend that gold on something which will help you survive future combats? Or help himself to survive his next combat so he can continue to be your meat shield? Or just help you earn more gold in the future, exact your revenge, or gain ultimate power? Why steal from orphans when you can put a new roof on the orphanage and set yourself up to steal from the town council or get hired by the king because you created a good reputation for yourself? Never steal anything small. Never appear to be evil in public. Never get caught. Never double-cross the person who will vouch for you. If donating a copper will set you up to earn a gold, an evil character will do that. If paying to heal another PC (and never getting repaid) will keep the evil character alive and help him reach his goals, an evil character will do that and a smart evil character will never complain about it. The evil which a PC exhibits should be more the ultimate goal the PC has for his life than an indication of his daily behavior. That is to say, wanting to become wealthy at any cost, become a tyrannical king, wanting to gain power, knowledge, or fame are appropriate goals for an evil character. The other players can get behind the idea of helping another player gain wealth, power, knowledge, and fame since those are common goals. But an evil character won't constantly talk about details like how the wealth and power will help him get revenge and won't ever mention (for example) that his idea of revenge is to obliterate every man, woman, and child in some city. And when he does reach that point of revenge, he might try to manipulate the events so that the genocide isn't his fault or might manipulate the other PC's into thinking that obliterating the city is the only possible solution to some problem. On the other end, having evil behavior in the PC's daily life probably isn't a good idea. A PC can't be a serial killer who murders someone every day and still be able to fit into most campaigns. Alienating the inhabitants of every city the group visits is a terrible idea for good characters and it's a terrible idea for evil characters. Evil acts should be a step forward in achieving the character's goals rather than an evil act for the sake of committing evil acts. For a PC in a campaign, "evil" should never mean the same thing as "stupid" or "unable to control himself". If the player can't handle that fact, the player shouldn't try playing an evil character.
That seems to be an odd thing with a lot of people and alignment in general. Lawful Good = Lawful Stupid Chaotic Neutral = Joker minus all character depth/purpose I blame half of it on the decades of half-baked limp-wristed explanations of what alignment is (especially when it comes to evil alignments though).
If your playing an evil character you need only really consider doing the evil thing if its less of a hassle (including future problems it might cause) then doing the good thing. And you can still care about some people and have friends, though you might need to explain why you care but it's enough to say they are just nice and you like them. Then obviously you can go all the way down to murderhobo from there if you like.
But you CAN play a psychopath who is a danger to the party as much as their enemies, if you want to. It's just that like you can decide what to do with your character, your teammates can decide what their characters want to do about it.
After endless Dragon Wars ravaged the lands for centuries, dragons, that where enslaved and used by powerful spellcasters as living weapons of mass destruction, are on a bring of the extinction. The last dragon egg - the golden egg - where stolen by powerful Witch-Princess, that wishes to raise the last golden Dragon as her ultimate weapon of vengeance against the nation that rejected her rule after the war... And only ragtag team of heroes, villains, anti-heroes and anti-villains, can stop her schemes and save the beautiful golden dragon from the horrible princess!
There are so many interesting ways to play Evil or morally dubious characters. Here are some: 1) A Rogue Assassin who is the longtime friend of a Lawful Good Paladin. Either because of that friendship, or because he genuinely believes in the Better World the Paladin wants to create, the Rogue will help the Paladin achieve that goal. Even if it means risking his life, yes, but also if it means doing horrible things. The Rogue knows that he's not a good person; he doesn't have the strength of character that his Paladin buddy has, and there's already plenty of blood on his hands. So he'll work in the shadows, quietly eliminating obstacles in the Paladin's path, without the Paladin or anyone else knowing. The Rogue HAS to do it, because he knows that the kind of compromises the Paladin would need to make to achieve his goal would ruin him. And the Rogue does not want to see the Paladin's nobility - his righteousness - tarnished by committing underhanded acts. So the Rogue does it for him, so the Paladin's hands can remain clean. It is the Rogue's sincerest hope that the day will come when the only villain the Paladin will need to put down...is the Rogue. 2) A Wizard with a simple, modest goal: Apotheosis. He wishes to become a god, and to do so by his own hands, with his own magical might. Amassing magical power is certainly his goal, and he's willing to do bad things in pursuit of that goal. But he's also willing to go along with a party of Good adventurers, if it means giving him opportunities to get power, and because he cannot abide threats to his apotheosis. He's also not willing to make a pact with a fiend or bow to a dark god; he intends to BE a god, and subservience is a dead end. 3) A Warlock (or Cleric) who secretly serves an Aboleth, and has been charged with going forth and eliminating rivals to the Aboleth's ascendance. Which means the character joins a Good adventuring party, since they tend to seek the destruction of villains. Seems like a natural fit, to co-opt these do-gooders for their master's ends. Moreover, the character can also be in a prime position to lead them back to the Aboleth's lair, when all other threats are eliminated, so THEY can serve the character's master. To this character, delivering them to the Aboleth's "embrace" is doing the party a favor. At least then, they'll finally know the glory of the master. 4) A Shadow Sorcerer who was born without a conscience; a total sociopath, with an inborn desire to do harm...and hates it. She never asked to be born this way. She resents how the kinds of positive activities others take for granted give her no pleasure. Only deceit and sadism do. She hates the distant Dark Powers that cursed her with power and the inability to connect with others. So, more out of spite than anything, she'll oppose evil things. And she'll seek out some way of "fixing" herself, to mend the broken part of her heart. She suspects that she'll feel guilty if that quest succeeds - that she'll look back at the horrible acts she committed to get there, and lament - but if so, it will be because she CAN feel guilty. That's an acceptable fate, if it means being able to _feel_ something other than bitterness. (Come to think of it, this concept would work well with a Yuan-ti Pureblood).
So I am super freaked out because the first 2 bullets on this list are characters I have made and played for years. The 1st one is my main pc, and had fallen in love with the Paladin whom they were best friends with. The Paladin saved them after they got caught doing a job for a rival of their Paladin Order. He was supposed to be executed, but the Paladin argued that his skills were valuable, and he instead was taken under the Order's wing and made their squire. My Rogue never forgot his act of mercy, and vowed to be his dagger in the darkness so that he never had to dirty his hands.
A little advice on point number four there is there’s no clinical difference between a sociopath and a psychopath. So you have to think of "total sociopath" as a psychopath so they don't just not have a conscience they don't have the ability to have a conscience. That doesn't mean that you can't have psychopath in the party some psychopaths can be very charming and deceptive if it suits their purposes but there is an impact. They could befriend the party simple because they want the most powerful people on their side. Corporate psychopaths follow this pattern. What you are describing in number four is more of a trauma disorder fueling a great deal of rage. The difference with a psychopath is a psychopath will never change there is no "treatment" but your shadow Sorcerer may at sometime start to change based on her experiences going forward. She may find acceptance or eventually find that her revenge on the world is empty. Nitpicky difference I know essentially at the start zero difference in behavior but over time may make a big difference.
Poetwarrior I think Bluecho4's idea is still a socio/psychopath. I don't think he's saying that the character can get better over time by natural means, he's saying that the character's motivation is to quest for a means to magically alter her mind, and "fix" their sociopathy by giving herself a conscience and empathy. In the real world this is impossible of course but in a fantasy one it's a fascinating character concept. The psychopath knows they are different or "wrong" somehow and wishes to be like the others around them. Bluecho4 dude those were some great concept. I freaking love #1, such a cool concept that I hope I see at my table one day.
You can say the same thing about the entire video a thirty minute discussion on fantasy player characters with 5 minutes on psychology experiments in the 60's. Nobody being super serious it's just an interesting discussion.
Same. My "villain" needs to accrue power to resurrect his partner after they died from an initiation ritual to the goddess of magic. I didn't realize what type of character they were until now
I hate it, when the Monstermanual just reads: "This is an evil creature. It does evil things. PCs have to stop it." Does not help me at all. Now I have to come up with goals, motivations and methods all on my own.
I once made a dragon who’s whole deal was putting everyone into crippling debt that passed on to their children after the original inevitably died before repaying it. None of the party hesitated.
I had a Necromancer who would raise the dead and enter them into gladiatorial tournaments. Can't be knocked out of the tourneys if you can't die. No direct antagonism to people - but pretty shady, as they'd then use this to place guaranteed bets and cash in and get rich. Not inherent cartoon evil, just very shady money through even shadier methods. Not sure what facing of the gladiator arena his head's mounted on now...
One of my favorite characters is a LE assassin who loves killing, and has little regard for human life, but they fight for their friends. They stick to their party, and because they only care about their friends and nobody else, will do anything to help their party even if it’s entirely an evil act. Essentially they were a sociopath with a strong bloodlust but still cared about a select few and was trustworthy to them.
"and maybe William Blake depending on how much mescaline you've taken" This is a quote from a video about Dungeons & Dragons. This reality is the best reality.
I was about to roll my eyes out of my sockets when you started talking about the Milgrim experiment thinking you were going to misunderstand the findings. Then you whipped out the actual conclusion from study 4-11 and I was floored. My deepest respects for you from a Psychologist in training Subbed
It would be amazing if someone could link the study, I couldn't find it myself. Although it is reassuring to see that he didn't just make it all up by having you confirm it :) (Yes I am aware this is a 3 year old comment but thanks anyway)
I agree, we dont watch Matt Colville for quick snip its. I honestly which he would do longform podcasts. He and web dm are some of my favorites, web dm because its a dialogue.
“The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either -- but right through every human heart -- and through all human hearts. This line shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years. And even within hearts overwhelmed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained” ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
"Violence can only be concealed by a lie, and the lie can only be maintained by violence." Alexander Solzhenitsyn “Ownership of the media is always in the hands of the perpetrators.” - Alexander Solzhenitsyn
My favorite character to play is an "evil" character. She is a cleric to Zon Kuthon the pathfinder god of pain and suffering. She views suffering as a necessary catalyst to keep society moving forward. She believes that a world with no suffering would lead to stagnation, that no one would have the motivation to be more than they already are. She adventures because each trial and challenge she suffers through and comes out the other side victorious, the more powerful she becomes, and the more pain and suffering she can bear for the next trial. She continues this cycle because she knows that when she is the source of another's pain, she will be the target of their anger and hatred, and she must be strong enough to bear that burden if she is to do the work that must be done to keep the world moving forward.
That's pretty fucking cool, I can see why she'd be a favorite. Coming up with really interesting philosophies is a super fun part of character making and is made really easy with religious characters and its a shame I don't see many people try it.
My latest Evil character was a half-elf wizard who was lazy, egoistic and hedonistic. He chose mainly "comfort" spells and only played the hero because he enjoyed the recognition and social status that came with it. He was a lot of fun to play. Players seldom think that "evil" has lesser forms, and it's not just kill, maim, torture.
I was once in a Pathfinder campaign with a Zon Kuthon cleric. That was a wild campaign - we had alignments all over the spectrum: CE, LG, LE, CN, CG, and N. I have no idea how we accomplished as much as we did, but it definitely helped that the ship's captain (N) was an incompetent who didn't give a flying f* about ethics.
"some players just want to show up and roll dice and save the beautiful dragon from the evil princess" idk if that was on purpose or if you just messed up yr words and rolled with it, but GOSH what a concept i love it
I don't mind long videos because 1: you got a good voice. 2: you got very interesting look on things, make me think a bit👍because "a storyteller doesn't tell how to think he gives you questions to think upon" 3: interesting topics 😋👍
I agree. I can listen to Matt all day, even if he's self-conscious that he might be rambling -- it *feels* structured, whatever it is he does to anti-ramble himself.
Ha. The first rule of DM'ing - the trajectory of the players is precisely that which most inconveniences the DM. (Congrats on your first session, from a fellow newbie - I've been running a game for about 3 months now.)
I had a neutral evil necromancer that was fairly interesting to play. He wasn't a necromancer because he was trying to raise an undead army or anything, he was actually just fascinated with ancient civilizations. He was perfectly willing to rip the spirits of the long dead from their rest just to ask them for details about their day-to-day lives. He didn't care who he hurt, he was more concerned with his research than he was the safety/wellbeing/health of anyone living. He was more than happy to follow laws, as long as they didn't stop him from doing his research.
I’ve had the nicest evil Lawyer PC I’ve wanted to play for so long. As a lawyer he works ONLY under contract as a warlock part of his pact is that he always includes a default clause in his contracts rendering the immortal soul of the defaulter his eternal property. He doesn’t see this as a bad thing though. As far as he’s aware all other afterlives are questionable at best but hell is a sure thing. What’s more folks who just wonder in to hell have to go through centuries of literal torturous waiting before they can graduate to a Devil where as those bought in under contract can skip that line. To play him properly I’d need a DM that would allow me to use my familiar to courier contracts to my patron and use the linguists codemaking skills to write my contracts
I had almost the same setup! She was a Tiefling from Dis, and only worked with the party due to contract. Once the contract was up (at the end of the adventure), she went her own way. While she was part of the party, she was bound to act in the party's best interest. Whether she liked it or not, that meant a lot of fighting and burning bodies. It provided a fun dynamic that I really enjoyed.
One of my favorite moments in a campaign I was running was when our evil PC betrayed the party and even got one member killed and one lost in an underground hellhole, and was RIGHT to so so. The enemy they faced was too powerful, the good character could not concieve of sacrificing a bunch of NPC helpers to distract the bad guy and the neutral one was too proud to concede to the real might of their enemy and admit that they couldn't do it. It was the evil player who feigned helping the party, abandoned them to their enemy, got the world shattering artifact away from the enemy while it was distracted, and left so it could not be reclaimed that won the day. No one was angry with him too, it was brilliantly handled. Those are the evil moments that make great games.
Was anyone left to be angry with your character, though? From the perspective of the townsfolk NPCs, your party nobly sacrificed itself for your sake and theirs. Unless your character *_told_* them what they had done.
@@Oddmanoutre Two of the party were absent elsewhere and he immediately told them everything, even to the point of mounting a rescue mission and getting raise dead and ressurections prepped for those who were dead and unretrivable. Near the beginning of the adventure he even made it a point to collect what flesh and hair he could from the party on secret so he could ressurect them if he needed to kill them for any reason. He was on point.
Daniel Kubicek Sorry, but that's not evil then... In preparing for eventualities of "the field" where chaos often lends credibility to "difficult decisions" this character's collecting hair and flesh for resurrections was a premeditated effort to keep damages minimal, even reversible if at all possible. In pursuing the "Cause no harm" clause, that makes this purposefully heroic action, and simply NOT an evil, NOR even a betrayal... Sure, it sucks getting killed, even a little bit, and even temporarily... Same with getting surreptitiously dropped into any hellholes (at least most of the ones I've been plopped into sucked)... BUT with all efforts to MITIGATE whatever damage wasn't inherently reversible, it smacks conscientiously of inherent Good and Leadership qualities... including the kind of strength of character to Enter into those Dire and Difficult Decisions with quiet resignation, a true act of courage. Betrayal would be to surreptitiously abscond with said artifact, entirely for personal gains, even with a consequence of the Big-Bad losing grasp of it irretrievably, because that singular redeemable value to it would be "an afterthought"... and there is simply no relevant purpose served in spreading word that this betrayal occurred at all, while the ends of the betraying character are even momentarily one step closer to being resolved. As a relatively prolific Evil PC Player (usually on requests... lolz) Vile Sons of Bitches are kind of my bread and butter at the Table. ;o)
@@gnarthdarkanen7464 looking back, I guess a darkly neutral is more approiate. He did some pretty twisted things for the greater good later on (compressing an efreet into a magical ball of goo so he could use it's wishes 1/day, flashing a gate to Cthulu over a city to kill monsterous invaders with some civilian casualties considered acceptable losses, and selling the big bad's body and soul to shadowy torture monsters in exchange for help killing the big bad), but overall he was more of an Elrik neutral than a Rastlin evil.
Daniel Kubicek That's cool, man... I just felt I'd be remiss in the duties of a "Constructor of Truly Vile Sons of Bitches" if I didn't point out the somewhat dubious lack of actual MALICE in your description. My minor infractions of honorability involve convincing Paladins to torture children and barbecue them in front of their parents... a fun and often revel-worthy passtime to even the "hobbyist" of darker aspirations. I've tricked the ONLY party Wizard into a head-on rushing attack on a Great Wyrm... AND then opened the door of the dragon's lair for the rest of the party to be in full view of the thing when it was looking for the "source of this intrusion"... Kept their stuff... even sold it out to their "replacement PC's"... and earned a hefty sum for the "hell" of it. Smarmed my way through rank-and-file nobility (with a naive GM... no less) only to be graciously promised the hand of the Princess in return for leading the Party against the "Villain of the Day"... JUST so I could marry her and then pimp her out later to pay rent for the rest of us... Sold the keys to an Elven Palace to the nearest band of Orcs when I was supposed to be a "Contracted Guard and Grounds Keeper"... (lolz) made a minor fortune there, too. AND convinced a Priest of the Goddess of Light and Life that her ENTIRE temple had turned to the Demoness Lolth... (not a bad fair as a pixie)... Needless to say, it's usually a terrible idea to get to the table with intentions to "outvillain" my PC's when I'm "on a bent"... AND for the record, I do "compensate" nicely... I later bought the "naive GM" a case of beer for his headache. It was no less hilarious... and these are "just mischief"... ;o)
I've played cannibal halflings in the past... my favorite recipe was elf ear soup (think shark fin soup). Every elf, including fellow PCs were fair game. One such halfling was a cleric who eventually learned Regeneration. THAT was a whole new level of epic culinary delight. "Hmm, I've heard about liver with a nice chianti... let's try it, this will only hurt a moment, and you'll get a brand new liver!"
For a lot of my life in gaming I subscribed to the idea of "who would ever want to play an evil character" but this video has helped me see it from a better point of view. I'm not sure I could ever play an evil character, but that makes me want to try. Now I just gotta find a group that doesn't have conflicting schedules.
In my old Starfinder group I tried to bring in a level of maturity by introducing villains who did bad things but who had the best of intentions or believed they were in the right, it didn't take, they wanted guilt free extermination of evil people in order to prove how good they are. (Please note that they claimed they wanted a gritty sci-fi story in the vein of Firefly where there are no true good guys, instead of the good vs. evil of a classic space opera.) It didn't help that my "good" players proved at times to be more cruel and vicious than the "bad guys", because they were good and their enemies were evil...........come to think of it, they may have accidentally been playing evil characters who thought they were good.
HAHAHAAHAHA.... aaahhh yeah they always think they want realism until it gets confusing. My DM regularly throws that stuff at us and currently I have a druid that is just trying to come to terms with his actions. great stuff
Yess... YES! Take this, use it! If the group ever plays Starfinder again, make their old characters the villains and use the exact same tactics they did.
One of my favorite campaigns as a DM happened when I had two npc anti-villains as the over-arching drivers of the world plot. For the PCs, it started out as good vs evil. But by the end, it was messy. They were confronted with an agonizing choice of whose 'just cause' they were going to follow.
"D&D is a manikin world..." Took me some time to realize that you were talking about the Maniche-ans (mænɪkiːən) and not some frightening puppet world.
I was 100% against this until @6:55 and that explained all my complaints about evil characters. When you force a wangrod to play a good character, you can beat them into submission with the Alignment stick and build rules around their play to try and make the group limp along. But with evil characters, the wangrod gets freedom and the group loses control. The key factor here and the key problem maker is not the evil character, it's the wangrod. Here is where I feel most people may get trapped. When I started running D&D for some friends, i knew I didn't 100% agree with their personalities or how they live their lives, but we could still be friends. Once we got involved in D&D, how they desire to be or see their fictional selves, completely ruins the fun for the others at the table. Because I play D&D with these people, evil characters are a no-go without removing friends (and coworkers) from the group. So to me, if the wangrod atleast has fun with the training-wheels on preventing their bad behavior, then we'll continue to play. If it's a deal breaker, we have to have the human discussion of having them leave the group without hurting the other situations where we must interact.
I love that one of the first points is aimed at Raistlin! I've been re-reading my old dragonlance and i am really inspired to play an evil character for my next.
I used to play a Warlock in World of Warcraft. It was an interesting class, because there are no good warlocks. Warlocks are either evil or, at best, chaotic neutral. You can never be a good warlock because you are, at the very least, enslaving beings and using their power to advance your agenda. The various factions and races didn't trust warlocks, because you'd be a fool to do so. But they needed the power warlocks had, which was considerable. And more often than not, a warlock's agenda would line up with theirs. Very few people would want to see the world destroyed, after all.
I've watched/ listened to this a few times and it's just occured to me a NPC companion (PC for me whem my friend DMs a session on occasion) in our Oracle of War campaign has done some horrific things to justify preventing another war across Khorvaire. We have ruled characters do suffer trauma for committing certain actions and failing Constitution saves and after this character failed one recently and started listing off the things he had done it was eye opening how far they had gone to try and stop another war happening, even murdering a high profile Brelish council member just to prevent a civil war occuring between two nations. He never wanted to kill anyone, never held a gun until this campaign started and now he's learning there's a monster inside despite his 'good intentions '. The other PC/ companion NPC when my friend runs is also reaching that point as well and it's made our game so interesting and made us invested in what will happen next. Thank you for this video, I'll probably relisten/ watch again a few more times 😁
In the Pathfinder game my group recently wrapped we had a Neutral Evil Wizard as the party leader in a party of good and neutral PCs and it worked fine. If anything she was the most responsible and least murderhobo-y of all us; her backstory was that she was the daughter of the Baroness who was the party's patron/liege, and knew that she would one day take over the rulership of the province. She was incredibly power-hungry, but smart enough to know that her ends were best served by seeming to be nice, helping out people (especially important nobles who she may need to support her powerbase later), protecting her peasantry (because they would one day be *her* peasants), mostly counselled obeying the law and following protocol (because said laws and protocols propped up the system that gave her power) etc. But when no-one was around she could be incredibly ruthless and brutal, and could be very high-handed with NPCs and other party members (but we've all been playing together long enough that we played it for laughs rather than being salty about it). Her goals were very self-centred, but for the most part being an adventurer and saving the world aligned with them (because one day she's going to have to rule that world).
I watched this video for advice on the LE character I'm making, but I can't decide if they're an anti-hero or an anti-villain. Basically, he's a skeleton that worked for a devil, he's a lawyer-type character inspired by Angel's Wolfram and Hart. He didn't read the fine print; He can't really die until he finishes out his contract. His mission is to help the party save the world, because the devil can't let the villain of the campaign succeed. My character is doing a good thing that might ultimately be a bad thing because an evil person told them to, and they're doing all this for selfish reasons. Are they an anti-hero or an anti-villain?
I know it might be a bit late, but i think the character would probably be an anti-hero. Seeing as how they are doing this good thing, not because they want to. But because the devil is making them. Anti-villian would be doing something bad even though they dont want to.
While I haven't heard of an anti-villain before, an Anti-hero is someone commiting terrible actions for good reasons. See the Punisher, he is murderizing gangs and similar truely evil people because his family died in the cross-fire. His terrible actions is brutally murdering people, even if they are terrible people being killed, the correct action would be a less violent takedown with intent to incarcerate them. His good motivations are that he is preventing this tragedy from repeating. (Its also vengeance but that isn't a heroic motivation). Also a clear distinction needs to be made between heroes & villains and protagonists & antagonists. Heroes and villains are tied to the whole morality good/evil axis, which can get muddy. The protagonist is the person who's side we are on, its whi the story wants you to root for. The antagonist is simply someone who is opposing the protagonist and usually the one we a rooting against. I tie into this the idea of "protagonist power" as having the story be told from your perspective. An interesting example is in One Punch Man when a villain randomly encouter the hero but the perspective doesn't swap to be from the hero's side of the story and thoughts.
@@happymonkeygames You're mistaken about anti villain, it's not the polar opposite, where anti hero does good stuff even though they don't want to at start, and anti villain does the opposite. Anti villain is the character who is kind and reasonable on the outside, but once pressed WILL do horrible things to ensure his plans. Think of Gus from Breaking Bad, if you cooperate with him he'll cooperate with you, if you start making problems, he'll remind you, teach you a lesson or even look the other way, but moment you pass a certain line which makes you either harmful towards his goals or untrustworthy incredible amount of violence and evil ensues. Anti villains are always heroes in their stories, and are usually calm and calculating on the outside, always keeping their cool, then ordering your murder once you become a threat (but not once you become useless to him or smth stereotypical). Anti villains are really good Lawful Evil characters, capable of raising orphans for years but then 'snapping' and maybe sacrificing all of them in an instant moment they need to do so, to gain what was their goal all along.
I would say the essential rule to creating _any_ PC (at least in games like D&D) is to create a character who wants to adventure with the party and whom the rest of the party would want to have adventure with them. It is the responsibility of every player to come up with a justification for why their character wants to adventure with the party. It is the responsibility of every player to roleplay in a manner that makes it plausible that their character would be valued or - at worst - tolerated. It is not the responsibility of the other players to tie _their_ characters in knots to justify the continued inclusion of a PC whom their characters would not plausibly tolerate. The problem with the classic "thief who steals from the party" is not that stealing is "evil", it's that the behaviour would not be tolerated by the party. An evil PC in a good/neutral party is not a dealbreaker in this sense as long as the player understands that betraying the party means their PC will be - at best - booted from the party and become an NPC. All of which is, I suppose, just a long-winded way of agreeing that the problem is not PCs who are evil; the problem is _players_ who are _wangrods._
Here's my amendment to your idea: while no one is responsible to make any particular kind of character--play what you want--the party and your character are under no obligation to like each other or want to adventure together. The creepy loner you make who stares at the PCs in the shadows of the inn but refuses to talk to them because he has no room in his heart for anything but murdering orcs...well that guy is going to get left behind when the other players take off. And that's fine. Don't burn the character sheet. There may be another time to introduce him--if not in this campaign, then in another. Quite often we run into characters who are just too weird for our current party of adventurers, but we fall in love with them so much that when we pick the game up again we make new characters custom designed to fit in with the oddball character. I've had lots of characters who have abandoned other players at a critical moment. I've had lots of characters who have gotten what they were out for and bid goodbye. I've had games where my character turned out, weirdly, to be the boss fight. It's a roleplaying game. Lots of things can happen.
The problem with having an asshole character around is that it also puts the players and DM in this weird state where the only reason their characters keep you around is due to either necessity or convenience. It makes them come up with all sorts of ad-hoc justifications for keeping around a character they'd probably just ditch the second they can. I.E "He's the only that can fly the ship" or "He knows this important NPC" or "he's one of the only 4 people that can swing a sword right".
Laughing At You Well, yeah. The other PCs are only tolerating the arsehole PC due to the metagame (all the PCs are being played by the people playing the game). If it were a book or a movie or a TV show, something would give. In RPGs things tend to stagger along with people having way less fun than they could have until the campaign collapses under the weight of the resentment.
I mean the best evil character I ever played was a card-carrying agent of cosmic evil. He was the rightful emperor of a long-dead empire, and he adventured with the heroes in the hopes of finding people to become his subjects.
I've been a little frustrated about my session last night. I know this video was made years ago but I did help remind me of my place and adjust my perspective as a player. Thanks for that Matt. I needed that
I can play with any type of character, as long as I trust the player to follow the social contract. If I trust the player to respect the rest of the table and not interfere with their enjoyment, then by all means, play an evil character. Then again, any type of character can be problematic with the wrong player, whether they call their character lawful good, chaotic good, neutral, or chaotic evil. As a general rule, if someone is going to play a character whose interests may end up not aligning with those of the party in a major way, you have to be ready to either grow/change your character, or give up the character when the character can no longer justifiably be aligned with the group. As a general rule, if the rest of the party has reason to believe you are working against their interests, it's time to retire the character to NPC status.
I have a character that I have played in a few incarnations since 2E. He is a selfish, protective wizard. He was chaotic neutral character (still is) and depending on which side of the DM screen he is on he can fill all of the 4 corners of that square. Currently, he is villain turned anti-hero. And honestly, this episode just help me out SOOOOO much in really digging down to figure out the various ways to portray him such that he is true to what is intended.
I needed this video for my "Good necromancer." My character is an Fallen Aasimar who was brought back from the dead by an evil god of necromancy. My character was basically given no choice on this type of magic. But, all he wants to do is use his new magic to help those weaker than him, ie building orphanages with undead, defending a town with his undead from either other undead or from other enemies.
I love this idea. In my campaign, ALL magic is neither good nor evil, it is the use thereof and the views of mortals. Oftentimes those who use "light magic" or divine/radiant spells can prove more villainous than the undead. There is an entire kingdom of undead where necromancy is adopted into a way of life. Most of the people there arent evil or particularly hostile. Despite this, a neighboring kingdom consistently seeks to undermine and genocide the other kingdom for their "heretical use of dark magic". Concepts like this I love as they provide more depth to a story and give more meaning to the worlds we build. I approve of your character choice.
Admittedly, slapping alignment bollocks on ONE school of magic was a MASSIVE not cool move on WoTC part. Why aren’t evocationists good, or illusionists chaotic, it doesn’t make sense for those schools but necromancy is always the evil guy or the creepy guys magic.
Thats one of my favorite types of characters. I'm currently playing a dragonborn undying warlock who experienced a tragic event in his life and was later tempted with power to make up for his personal failings. I make his primary goal to sort of go where death takes a large toll on people and help both the living and lingering spirits, and in return asks that those spirits help him. I'm awaiting schemes from his undying patron to subtly subvert that noble purpose every game.
Fjord from Critical Role's second campaign is in a similar boat. He's a warlock who mysteriously woke up with powers one time. He's trying hard to be Good, though it has now been revealed that his warlock patron serves Evil, and that complicated relationship is going to be so much fun to see develop.
The Aasimar cleric (Life Domain) in our party would be out to convert or kill you. To her, merely tolerating necromancy endangers her own power (and thus the chances of her successfully building her new religion). She forcibly evicted an ex-girlfriend from our shared house when she found out said ex was a dullahan. Never mind that she hadn't noticed this in the months they were attached, nor in the year or so after that, nor had she experienced any difficulties in her cleric abilities when the dullahan was around. But because the dullahan is undead, it's an abomination, and only the fact that the dullahan went without resistance stopped the cleric from killing her for good.
I actually played an evil character a few months ago. I was a CE Yuan-Ti wizard whose entire goal was the overthrow Myrkul and become the new God of death. He never disclosed this to the players, and followed them because he knew in order to become better he needed pawns and this seemed like the best way to get them. About halfway through the campaign one of the players committed a murder and I witnessed it. So I used it as blackmail for him to basically become my servant. Skip ahead a few sessions and the murder has spread throughout the town and there is now a reward of 500GP and a bag of holding for the murderer dead or alive (his identity was discovered because one of the players had used speak with the dead and learned of who the murderer was). So knowing that my bodyguard had been compromised I snuck into the characters room and killed him while he was sleeping and brought the body to the authorities where I was given my reward. This shocked everyone at the table because they had no idea I was evil. Still my absolute favorite evil PC moment I've ever had.
My first PC was a Lawful Evil Yuan-Ti assassin. He wanted to bring Mershaulk back into being, and found elemental cults so that they wouldn't destroy the world before he could do so.
one of the PCs in a campaign I'm in turned evil as the story progressed, and not only did it lead to some absolutely awesome plot developments but that player is one of the best players I've ever met, supportive and kind and engaged and just fun to be around
If you have an "evil" pc, then once they have what they wanted, given the circumstances, could have over time grown attached to the other party members or even changed as a person. It is completely possible, at least I think it is.
I would think of it as more of a pragmatic option. I know these people, I know they're reliable. Do I stay with them with a guarantee of protection and camaraderie, or take my chances with other people who are willing to associate with me? If you're playing a character that doesn't trust well, it basically writes itself.
@Nob the Knave yes they do. a terrible man may value his family or his best friend despite consistently showing disregard for the lives of others. evil characters are living beings, not villainous stereotypes.
Great topic! I just added a definition for evil for my campaign: Willing to make sacrifices for the 'greater good,' even if those sacrifices need to be made by others. Others may see you as evil, but you know better.
A group I was playing with once had a short campaign where we made Arch-Villains using the Heroes Unlimited rules. It was a lot of fun, especially because we had all decided that we had to stay true to the classic hero adventure idea that the good guys would win; so we had to do things like monologue our plans, leaving before the trap killed the heroes, etc. The campaign worked incredibly well because, even as our characters betrayed and abandoned each other, as players we all openly discussed how we wanted to play that campaign, and what we wanted as an experience playing the "Evil Villains".
"If you wish to write a grand opera about a prostitute dying of consumption in a garret..." Now I want to make that game. Oh wait! I already did! #housesoftheblooded Nice video, Matt. :)
Really want to try Houses of the Blooded someday. I really enjoy that book though I vigorously disagree with all of the arguments it makes against "that Other game". We may get to play Cat soon though. That makes me happy.
I played an anti-villain in White Plume Mountain recently, and it had exactly the rug-pull effect you discussed. She wasn't technically evil-aligned, but she did shift from Chaotic Good to Chaotic Neutral because of her betrayal. My Wizard was born to an impoverished family in the city of Sigil who couldn't pay for her Wizard college tuition, so she fell massively in debt to get an education. In White Plume Mountain, stealing one of the artifact weapons (Blackrazor, Whelm, and Wave) provided the perfect opportunity to repay that debt. In the middle of a fight that we were badly losing, she tricked our Ranger into giving Blackrazor to her, saying she could draw power from it to cast a spell that would save the party. She then cast a _banishment_ spell on herself to return to Sigil with Blackrazor, screwing the party out of both a quest reward and an obscenely powerful magic item, and leaving them to finish the hyper-deadly fight on their own. All of her magic items and her spellbook had been stolen immediately prior to the fight; she left them all behind to escape with the priceless magic sword that would repay her debt. Just before leaving, she dropped a note to the Ranger that expressed sincere apologies for the betrayal and clarified that she had no ill will towards them, but gave a vague warning not to try to pursue her. She even entrusted her owl familiar to the Ranger as a sign of good faith (although the owl had died between her writing the note and banishing herself.) The other players were all quite good-natured about the betrayal. I don't think they'll be forgetting it any time soon.
@@danielrobins6020 I want to see Matt play a character just once. I think he would enjoy the shift in the role and really appreciate the terror players feel when going into an unknown world where anything can happen.
Mad Hatters in jeans you can watch some series on itmejp’s channel. Rollplay series. He is a player in some games. I think he’s in Breakers. He is a guest player in the finale for Swan Song.
I’m not even halfway through this video, and it is damn good! I don’t think I’ve ever felt the need to give a video a standing ovation. Amazing! Subscribed!
My first “evil” charachter was Varrick. He was just a wizard, frail like most and a coward. Necromancy isn’t bed per se in my DM’s world as long as you return the souls / bodies to their god. Varrick however, sought a way to undo death. Varrick lived in a wealthy home, his parents gave him everything he wanted. This made Varrick very sheltered and unknowing of the hardships of life. As long as he could remember, he had a dog. And like all dogs, they age and they die. Varrick could not deal with this and sought a way to undo the death of his dog and ultimately perhaps himself one day. When the party had to escape a dungeon, while being chased by an invisible stalker, the party came back to the entrance. Everyone was hurt but alive, they needed to overcome one final obstacle. A 3 scythes swinging in the doorway. Our fighter waited and jumped. He made it. Meanwhile the stalker slowly crept up to the group. Hissing about a sacrifice. Our cleric, jumped through the doorway as well. He too was safe. Then Varrick grabbed our druid and said ”Sorry, I will bring you back eventually. I promise.” The table went silent. My DM, went silent. Everyone gave me that look. The player said: I roll to escape the grapple and jump through the doorway. He rolled, broke free of Varrick’s weak grasp and jumped through the doorway. The party looked back at Varrick. Him trying to time and make the jump before getting sliced by the stalker. The players said: Man, Varrick was a dick. Except surprisingly the druid. He said: “I think, that for a one-shot, you made a legend. He was just a dude, trying to survive.” Now, was Varrick “evil”?
I think true "evil" boils down to pride, in a sense. Typically played out in selfishness, where an individual values themselves more than someone else. They view their own needs as more important than someone else's. In the case of a sometimes benevolent dictator, they view themselves as above others. They decide what is best for you, they decide who lives and dies, they do as they please because they have the power and they view themselves as above everyone else. Even in the case of failing to do the right thing out of fear, you are putting your own concerns above the needs of others.
I disagree. Being selfless is indeed a virtue, but lacking that virtue does not in itself make one evil. I think of the " good/evil" axis being one of attitude towards others suffering. If one has no concern at all (a born psychopath, or a learned sociopath), or just decides it doesn't matter, or even enjoys the feeling of superiority when avoiding others suffering, or even inflicting it (sadism), one is evil. Sociopaths are evil. Narcissists are selfish. All Sociopaths are narcissistic, but not all narcissists are sociopaths. One can be completely selfish, yet be disturbed by the negative effects on others. In this characters case, if he had succeeded, yet felt actual remorse, and fulfilled his promise to at least attempt bringing back the druid, what he did may be considered an evil act, and everyone would be justified in hating him, but it does not make him evil. He may have been merely flawed, in that his fear and cowardice overrode any other concern. Survival instincts are quite powerful.
@@soulkutu Selflessness is a virtue, that can manifest in any variety of good characters, or for other reasons, in Lawful characters that are not good, but believe the individual must sacrifice for the benefit of the group. It is not required for all philosophies of good, however, and is not the sole arbitrating factor of good and evil.
