Natural 7

Evil Characters

This post is about playing evil characters. Can it be done? If so, what are the pitfalls to watch out for and the techniques to use to make it an enjoyable experience for everyone at the table?

This post is highly opinionated. Lots of people don't like evil characters. Here, I'm trying to examine my recent experience playing evil characters and why I think some worked and some didn't.

If you'd like to read more about my opinions on Mythic Bastionland, check out my Playing Mythic Bastionland post.

The Glue

Before I say much of anything about evil characters at all, I want to mention the most important thing about playing characters with a group of other people in a roleplaying game.

Your characters need to have a reason to work together. They are a team. Maybe it's just for this one heist or until you kill the evil guy, but until then you are a team with a shared goal. This goal keeps you together until it has been accomplished or failed. Then you can re-evaluate the situation.

This means that everyone should have a clear understanding of the goals of the group and the goals of the game itself. Usually you can guess the implied goal from the game itself. If your game has XP, the method in which they obtain it is the primary goal. If your game doesn't have XP, you'll want to look at what gameplay it encourages.

We're a Team

In dungeon-crawlers, everybody is part of an adventuring group trying to loot treasure from the dungeon. What you want to do with said treasure is up to each individual player, but we know that everyone wants it. That's the reward that everyone seeks. You also know that, due to the risk of dungeons, it is often better to work together than to try and loot everything alone.

Most people just want the money to upgrade their equipment and make a name for themselves or to sustain their livelihood. Others will have greater agendas, like establishing a temple, founding a cult, or destroying an ancient evil.

In Mythic Bastionland, everybody is a Knight who has sworn the Oath (see my previous post on Knighthood for a recap) and intends to abide by it. There are three components to this Oath:

Seek the Myths

Honor the Seers

Protect the Realm

Okay, these aren't too hard to understand. I should seek mythical adventures, be respectful to some elders, and make sure I don't make bad decisions on behalf of my community. Everyone understands that they need to follow this Oath or they don't get to play that character anymore. Everyone also understands that everyone else has sworn the Oath. We all want the same things.

We're a "Team"?

What if we take another reading of the Oath? Let's say that Seeking the Myths means hunting down the various powerful fantastical beasts related to those myths and finding a way to bargain with them for power. You chose to do this for some long-term goal, maybe you want to rule a city because the current ruler isn't great. How does this reading of the Oath interact with the "basic" reading above?

Player A has the basic reading. Player B has the new reading. They are at the same table playing the game and roleplaying and exploring and having fun. Player A wants to seek the myths just to see them brought to an end; the results don't matter so long as the other two points of the Oath aren't broken. Player B wants to seek the myths so that they can gain beastly allies and take over a city; they've already decided that trying to get these allies won't conflict with the oath. They meet a beast and Player B begins the negotiations.

Up until this point there is no opposition between players and their goals. They both have the same oath and are walking the same path to their long-term goals. The path will diverge, and that's where things become interesting.

Does Player A believe that if Player B takes over the city with a mythical beast that the realm will be any less protected than otherwise? Does the beast have an ulterior motive or agenda that could negatively affect the realm or its seers? Is Player A okay with allying with a mythical beast in general?

This is a simple example of contested motivations at play. You've followed my core premise: have a shared goal. However, you've introduced some variability in personal goals. Players A & B get to have a good conversation about where to go from here.

How can this conversation go wrong at the table?

If you're playing a character with conflicting motives, how can you avoid these pitfalls?

Another point to consider about playing evil characters is the difference between a PC and an NPC. Players are more likely to trust and try to work with another player character rather than a GMs villain. This is because our mentality encourages us to work with each other. It feels bad to try and harass another player, but it feels good to harass your game's villain. This makes it easier to have player to player conversations about your conflicting motivations without immediately resorting to violence.

Experience with Evil

I like to categorize characters based on their moral alignment. Some might think that's old school, but I think it's fun. Good vs. Evil and Law vs. Chaos. They oppose each other by nature, but I don't think that means you can't mix them in roleplaying games. They certainly aren't mutually exclusive.

People who know me in real life know that I like evil characters. I've played several across various roleplaying games. In my recent Mythic Bastionland game, I played 4 characters that probably aren't your idea of good guys. Everyone had a ton of fun when I played these characters. Everyone remembers these characters as exciting and interesting. There were only a few occasions where the opposition created by my characters' motivations caused real life stress for the other players and GMs. I think this means that people can play evil characters in a group with mostly good characters. However, I think it requires a certain kind of mindset.

There's quite a bit of additional backstory that I'm about to leave out as I discuss these characters, but hopefully the points come across OK. Mostly what it comes down to is the context of your character and what they've been through and how you portray them. I'm also using simplified versions of their names.

Character 1: Kay

The first evil character I played in Mythic Bastionland wasn't really evil. He was a little morally gray, in that he really wanted to achieve maximum power and influence at all costs. The problem was that he never went through with a lot of what he "would have done". There were several opportunities where I had the chance to attack my fellow players in order to acquire some magical item for my own person gain. As a player, I was probably too scared to go through with this. In the end, this added to the idea of this character being a sort of coward, because I was almost always too afraid to do anything too risky, even when it wasn't an evil act (like running from a big scary monster).

I don't recommend playing characters who seek the deaths of other player characters. This can breed antagonistic and stressful relationships between you and the rest of the table. Instead, I recommend looking for goals that allow you to work alongside your fellow companions.

For example, I wanted power at all costs; instead of killing player characters to get what I want, I could talk to them about why I am the best choice to wield the vorpal sword and maybe we could come to a compromise. Don't expect every conversation to go your way. People are naturally inclined to avoid options that feel evil or bad. It shouldn't be surprising when people are adverse to your ideas. If you can give good reasons why you want what you want, that can strengthen your motive and might convince other people to join your cause.

Character 2: Drew

My second character fought long and hard to get people on his side. He had been resurrected by a powerful seer to restore balance and equality to the realm. The current knights were not fostering a fair and balanced community for the vassals of the realm. The methods I used to achieve this goal was killing other knights; though I didn't start with other player characters until they consented to dueling.

Multiple people agreed with me that the realm wasn't being managed fairly. We had a historical precedent of knights doing whatever they wanted without consequence. We all understood it was time for a change. Some people didn't like the change I proposed and the methods I used. Death was my quick solution, but it was not the only solution. Tension and opposition escalated, other narrative events triggered changes to various people's opinions and values, and eventually it was decided that my character and his allies could not exist in this realm anymore. We would cause more harm than we sought to bring. I understood this. My friends understood this. One day I sat down at the session (remember, these were open-table games so anyone who was available could join) and I realized that no one present was playing a character who was friendly with me. About 5 minutes into the session they confronted me about my actions and their intentions to end my threat.

Understanding that my character wouldn't stop unless he was dead, I told them so. They cut him down and we all moved on. I already had a backup character ready.

This may seem like an unstoppable force vs an immovable object, but I don't think it was. Both parties understood we weren't getting out of this unless there was a clear winner. I didn't put up a fight or resistance out of game; I accepted my fate because I knew it was coming sooner or later. I understood what my character would do in-game too. He put up next to no resistance; he was prepared to die for his cause.

When playing this character I learned a lot more about what can cause negative experiences at the table. When your character directly opposes other player characters, that can be stressful, frightening, and exhausting for those players. I'll repeat what I said about the first character: try to have a goal that doesn't require or involve the deaths of other players.

Some GMs like to say that "there are always more bad guys". When you play an evil character, it's worth remembering that there are always more good guys too. You will rarely, if ever, truly win. The fight to get there is usually worth exploring though, which is why I tried to play so many evil characters. Likewise, you can't have redemption without villainous actions. I love redemptions.

Character 3: Trevor

The next two characters sought powerful relics that had been introduced early on in the campaign. After attaining them, I ascended to a higher power. It required swearing a new Oath and determining new motivations. I was no longer a Knight. I was a King.

Seek their Secrets

Deceive their Seers

Guide their Realm

This was the new Oath. It's not quite the opposite of the original Oath, and it reminds me of the Bene Gesserit from Dune. The Oath tells you what you want and then you decide how to achieve it. It gives you the end destination. You choose the path you'll walk to get there.

The first character I played with this new Oath cared about their family, first and foremost. Yes, he was almost literally Vin Diesel. When I swore the new Oath I decided that he wanted to do some sneaky things to guarantee that his preferred allies would hold positions of power in the future. My methods involved bribery and diplomacy.

I was also encouraged to kill (not just deceive) seers in order to gain personal power through one of the artifacts tied to that new Oath. The stronger I was the more influence I would have over other knights (and the easier it would be for me to survive the situations that arise from playing Mythic Bastionland).

Killing seers is in (almost) direct opposition of the original Oath. That means other players (if they found out I was killing the seers) would probably be a little distraught. They want to protect the seers as a way of honoring them. I didn't tell anyone what I was doing, and I resolved the majority of the seer deaths outside of game sessions. Time passed and no one actually knew that I was doing something evil (killing people is always an evil act). That meant playing this character was objectively easy so long as I kept my secret.

Actually achieving my goals was difficult due to other circumstances, though for the most part I was happy with how everything played out. I'll probably write about these artifacts another time.

Character 4: Morgan

The fourth evil character took the new Oath and went a different direction with it. The people I wanted in power kept dying and the political state of the realm was in shambles. I resolved that this new character would try to fix things, gain the trust of people by doing such a very good thing, and also try to maximize the power and utility of my artifacts by killing more seers so that I could continue guiding the realm from a position of power, influence and trust.

It was all working swimmingly until everybody found out who was making all those seers disappear. Across 40 or so years, about 8 seers "went missing". Some of those seers players (including myself) really liked. None of the living seers were able to offer a good explanation of why the seers were going missing, and why some of them appeared to have been killing by an unseen force (part of the artifact's powers).

Learning that it was me probably didn't surprise many of the players themselves, by this point they knew who to look at when bad stuff was afoot, but it was still an enormous shock to the characters mental states. People were afraid of why I was killing seers, and if I was actually working against them after giving the illusion of help during several other crises.

Some people thought that maybe there was more to the story than just me killing people for the hell of it. That triggered lots of interesting, entertaining, and valuable conversations between my character and other people's characters. This let me express my motivations, my goals, the reality of my actions, and the intentions I had going forward. I let people know why I did what I did. At this point I also decided that maybe it was time to stop being so evil behind the scenes; I wanted to try and redeem this character's evil actions.

There was a lot of fun dialogue produced by the accusations and following redemption. It was only possible because we allowed ourselves to enter conversations where we actually listened to the other person. Sure, some people heavily and heartily explained that my character could never be redeemed. But that wasn't everyone. Other characters were given a choice to accept or reject my character. It isn't an easy decision to give someone a second chance.

Summary

Kay wasn't really evil. He was more like Batman than anything else; preparing for the worst outcome, but trying to avoid it as best he could.

Drew was particularly villainous. It added a lot of tension to the game and we had a blast resolving the realm-wide political discomfort. There were many memorable moments from this character. However, the player antagonism was really risky. It caused stress for my friends in real life because they didn't know if my character was actually just going to attack them in the game (for the record, I don't think I would have attacked them).

Trevor was like Vin Diesel and he was a family guy. There is a lot more backstory to this character, but in the end he was evil because he killed NPCs. He didn't feel bad about it and no one ever really learned that he was the one killing those NPCs. His goals were tangential to everyone else's so we were able to engage in dialogue and we were never at each other's throats. This was a fun character to roleplay and incorporate into our game.

Morgan was a vengeance and redemption plot baked into one character. I was evil and then I told people that I wanted to make things better. There is also a lot of backstory that I left out here, and this was the most successful of my evil characters. Probably because I was able to converse with a ton of different characters prior to being taken to medieval court over killing NPCs. The court thing was actually a lot of fun (I think it was the most stressful for me, since I was the guilty one). I recommend giving the redemption thing a try, it's incredibly satisfying to show a moral change in your characters.

Final Thoughts

These kinds of choices are why I play evil characters. When the GM presents a villain, players often just defeat them and move on. When a player presents a villain, everyone thinks a lot harder about whether or not they should fight. I recommend words before blades, but to be prepared and accepting of whatever fate my hold for you. Evil rarely wins.

What would you do if someone seeks a different end goal than you? Will you join them, challenge them, or ignore them? Is there a solution beyond the obvious: killing anyone who disagrees with you? What does it take to forgive someone who has performed evil actions?

This was a really long post but I hope it gave you something to think about when roleplaying your characters.

Happy holidays, see you next week!