A problem with Team Evil: D&D

[Midnight_v]

I'm having a problem with various pbp and even a few D&D people in real life, disallowing evil characters.
I'm starting to find the whole thing quite off putting mostly because people refuse to even discuss it, but dismiss the notion outright. Sometimes with something so flat as a "I'm the MC and I said so" but...
I find that, well the thing is aside from a few spells here and there it doesn't matter mechanically.
Further, it doesn't hurt the narrative any WHAT I have on my character sheet... being on "Team Evil" is just another sub-set of being on "Team Hero"
Now I've gotten a couple people to actually TALK to me about it recently and I"m picking up on somethings.
1. People don't allow evil because of some anecdotal event when "An Eeeevil pc, wrecked my game"
2. People disallow it as a hard rule and try not to discuss it because... because honestly they don't have good reason to ban it but have it in their head that it leads to someting terrible.
3. ... and I have heard this mentioned a couple times in the last few days, but the Paladin. They don't let anyone be evil cause of the paladin... but this is in a bubble that this situation is being discussed. So when they make that statment I was at first baffled, suddenly it hits me. Paladins are the most controlable as far as pc's go in many peoples mindset. So it becomes very easy for the Dm to get his "railroad" on, by dangling something 'EVIL" in front of the paladin. Where as it might have to be something personally beneficial or personally threatning to the wizard or rogue.

The thing that irks me the most about all this is that in many ways it creates a totally dishonest situation in character design.
NOT ALLOWING someone to write evil at the top of the sheet makes wierd shit like every Dread Necromancer, Hexblade, Shadow Mage, Warlock, etc... all the dark power guys... Solidly neutral. O
(or Edward Cullen style waangst-ers")
Also thats solidly bullshit.
Further, the Assassin class doesn't ever get to be played (For the sake of arguments were are going to pretend that all classes are powerwise, balanced and the only thing that matters is story) AT ALL.
Maybe because I feel like "Evil" and really "Villany" in general is not, no, cannot be filled with jerks running around in black yelling "Bwahahahaaaa!", or maybe I just see that though almost NO ONE considers themself "evil" in real life, its just because people are really perversly good at justification of the wrong doing commited by them.
Its just gotten stomach turning, and stupid having to play under that particular constraint.
I have a Necromancer Wizard (Master of the Save or Die)
I have an "Assassin"(doesn't matter what class it actually is he elimitates targets for money, and its stupid to lie and say he's "neutral whatever".
I have an Barbrian/Ex-Zhentarim Soilder. Evil because excessive pragmaticism does come off as evil, plus, I love this character to have the elder evil feats "Madness" or "Insane Defiance" which was how he got out of the Zhentarim Bane cunnlingus anyway.
I have a damn Warblade, who's personality is represented as a guy who is a proffessional soilder who wants to have coin, a drink and some tits at the end of the long day, but gets pulled into "Team Hero" all the time because he's the guy most capable of stopping things that interfere with said 3 goals, now He is more of an Anti-hero but when comes off guys in rap videos or... original conan stories its hard for me to put "good" at the top of that. Its dishonest. He's Neutral, likely but Evil because saving you is completely incedental he's totally willing to kill people in the street old west style.
I can't get any of these dudes into a game. Its starting make me want to leave rpg'ing honestly.
So I've decided to do a Guide to Functional Evil:
and I'm going to peddle it all across the known sites, yes even Gitp, yes even the Pazil's, but before I do... I decided to post here in the community that I respect the most because you have the most objecti...
No, because this board has the most hardcore analysis of problems. Objectivity, is the wrong word because we all have what we believe, but I KNOW you guys do critical analysis when you post.
So, the validity of team evil in Rpg games (specifically D&D) or even This is how you play a fucntional evil.
Discuss?

[Xenologer]

The only criterion I ever have for character motivations/alignment/whatever is that they should have some reason to work with other characters and be part of the story. If they're uncontrollable cannibals who cannot help but run around like Reavers savaging everything that moves, then no, you may not play them in my game. It isn't because I care about alignment. It's because I care about players making it a whole separate intensive job keeping their characters from needing to be put down as a menace by their fellow party members. I don't care if every day a particular character beats off to fantasies of burning elven villages. Will their interactions with the other party members be interesting? If the character really is inclined to brutalize people in ways the party will object to, is the player prepared to accept the consequences and not bitch like a little fucking candy-ass about how it's not fair that no one likes their character?

I've played a lot of evil characters, and they're almost universally people who can still control themselves and behave well enough in civilized company that they can be part of a team and get some seriously epic shit done that makes a cool story. Generally they don't see anything wrong with what they're doing, and don't see their motivations as being any different than anyone else's (no matter what the Cosmic Alignment Measure may say to the contrary). As a GM, I have no problem with anybody else doing that very thing.

However, people who play characters who are impossible to work into a team or party of any kind and who want nothing more from life than to detonate the corpses of puppies and then rape the resultant mushpile are not going to fly in my game without the player making some kind of very good case why this character will work at all.

Again, it's all about them having a reason to have some kind of connection to other player characters. I don't care what their alignment is (either according to the character him/herself, or according to the bullshit D&D cosmic measure where "alignment" is this objective aspect of your soul or whatever). I just want them to be there and be interesting.

[Midnight_v]

The only criterion I ever have for character motivations/alignment/whatever is that they should have some reason to work with other characters and be part of the story

I'm with that 100%
Thats why I'm talking about a guide to Functional Evil really. I irked by the circumstances that leads to this "no evil" compact.

I've played a lot of evil characters, and they're almost universally people who can still control themselves and behave well enough in civilized company that they can be part of a team and get some seriously epic shit done that makes a cool story

Now this is important, I'm like baffled why it is people think evil means "I gotta rape this barmaid, I gotta sacrifice these babies, I gotta kick these pupies" that shits non functional.
I've also ran into rogues who say "I steal this from the party, because its what my pc will do" no one should ever do that shit period, because thats something very much like "Stupid Evil".
The thing is... I KNOW evil is functional, you seem people making evil descions everyday.
So the obvious thing is... The character has to NOT do things that make the other characters hate him. Granted, thats a step.
So its a not a question of motivation, on some level then, but moreso how that plays out in game.
It does seem like its an auto pass for game altering shit though, killing the kings guards or whatever, and honestly I have not problem with that as a Dm, but not just unprovoked. I've seen "good" pc's kill the guards just as fast or faster. Fuck Robin Hood was BASED on that shit... and I get you, really I do, no it doesn't matter in the direct sense WHAT it says up there at the top, you're going to play how you want to play we all are, so I just want to dispense with this pretense once and for all.

[Lago PARANOIA]

People don't allow evil PCs in the party because it always has one of three outcomes.

1) The evil PC doesn't get a chance to act upon their evilness or doesn't do anything really that bad. Their evilness is just then an Informed Attribute and they could've just as easily been Neutral or whatever, they just get off to writing Evil on their sheet.

2) The evil PC gets caught at some point doing something that the good members of party just can't overlook. So either the PCs have to drag themselves down to meet their level of the bad PC, they just ignore it and allow the evil PC to indirectly derail their characters, or you have a confrontation. Neither which are good for group cohesion.

3) The evil PC gets away with what they're doing the whole time with none of their party members the wiser, thus avoiding a game-ending confrontation. First of all, it's extremely arrogant for anyone to assume that none of the other PCs will catch on to this fact for an extended period of time--because otherwise you'll end up at point 2.

Even if they were Just That Good, the fact is that a lot of people don't want to have the implications to their story that that kind of thing would allow. It's the Chrono Cross dilemma. Even if the party's wizard and paladin saved the orphanage, there's the additional caveat of 'but the party rogue bankrupted it behind their backs to afford hookers and blow'. Or you have the story of 'while the druid and the monk went out shopping, the rogue kidnapped a few noblemen and tortured them for information'. This kind of thing happens fairly often in stories, but having it happen for an extended period of time indirectly derails their characters and hijacks the story--a lot of people don't want their story to have smug little asides that undermine their accomplishments. It's like a DM telling you that the orphans you rescued had a disease that wiped out the city a week later.

You might be arguing that it's an imposition on your character concept for you not to be allowed to be Evil, but it's an even bigger imposition on their character concept for you to be Evil. And since most people want to play decent people, majority rules here.

[Lago PARANOIA]

So the obvious thing is... The character has to NOT do things that make the other characters hate him.

Midnight_v, that's exactly the thing I'm talking about. It sounds like you don't actually want to play an 'evil' character, you just want them to be snarky and dark and pragmatic. A Disney anti-hero as it were.

[Molochio]

PC evil: The obvious problem with this is that almost every, if not every DM who has ever allowed PC evil as a viable option has unavoidably encountered someone who wants to play "Bwa, ha,ha!" maniacal evil.

Everyone knows who I speak of.
Lord Puppy Massacre, or whatever, who's only apparent motivation in life is to rape the princess, kill the merchant to take his goods, and burn the town guards alive.
It's difficult to motivate such an individual with the cares of a campaign world and pretty much any DM who games this manner of evil even ONCE feels like, PC evil?
"Fuck that shit! Fuck that shit forever!"

Hence, the no PC evil rubric as you know it.

[Midnight_v]

So the obvious thing is... The character has to NOT do things that make the other characters hate him.

Midnight_v, that's exactly the thing I'm talking about. It sounds like you don't actually want to play an 'evil' character, you just want them to be snarky and dark and pragmatic. A Disney anti-hero as it were.

Great... the drama queen. . .

Okay Lago, do you fail at reading comprehension much? That was a paraphrase of this.

It's because I care about players making it a whole separate intensive job keeping their characters from needing to be put down as a menace by their fellow party members.

Which you know you actually mention in your post.
Edit: I do know that evil means differnt things to differnt people, but Lago's example is one that I'm talking about.
He either says "Pfft thats disney evil!", that or you get "The baby eaters".
What I read YOUR idea its like what Molochio says "FUCK THAT SHIT FOREVER"
If some dude is interrorgating prisoners via torture it should be brief and handled by a intimidate check + modifiers for showing the tools or whatever. However its fucking hypocritcal to be like "How horrific" when otherwise the mage is just going to find some way to mind Rape it out of him anyway.
When really people want to play MAYBE Darth vader or someshit, and they're not allowed, its fucking stupid.

[Ice9]

Further, it doesn't hurt the narrative any WHAT I have on my character sheet... being on "Team Evil" is just another sub-set of being on "Team Hero"

Depends on the campaign, I think. You can certainly run with "Red vs Blue" style alignments, where the only real difference is whether you smite people with holy radiance or necromantic hellfire. But you can also run it "Evil is actually not a good thing" style, where even the most suave, honorable-seeming demon turns out to do really unpleasant things, such that you no longer want to be in the same room as them once you find out.

Also, in the majority of "evil character traveling with a good party" setups, everyone else gets put in the role of "the straight man" (as in, the guy Groucho Marx is funny at the expense of, not orientation). The evil character is so cunning that nobody catches him, or so powerful they have no choice but to tolerate him, or so touched by destiny that they can't leave him behind. So it does have an effect on the other players.

[Slade]

Now I've gotten a couple people to actually TALK to me about it recently and I"m picking up on somethings.
1. People don't allow evil because of some anecdotal event when "An Eeeevil pc, wrecked my game"

Well, #1: happens more than you think.
Unlike insert class here, this isn't about power fear but alignment messing with party solidarity.
You don't realize how much people link evil with "stab-stab everyone", counter agents working with enemy, etc.
Now there are exceptions Paladins of Tyranny are party friendly due to their code. But not Pallys of Slaughter.

You could give your word you aren't going to backstab party (and mean it) if this is primary worry.

2. People disallow it as a hard rule and try not to discuss it because... because honestly they don't have good reason to ban it but have it in their head that it leads to someting terrible.

#2: No, still #1 though theoretical.

3. ... and I have heard this mentioned a couple times in the last few days, but the Paladin. They don't let anyone be evil cause of the paladin... but this is in a bubble that this situation is being discussed. So when they make that statment I was at first baffled, suddenly it hits me. Paladins are the most controlable as far as pc's go in many peoples mindset. So it becomes very easy for the Dm to get his "railroad" on, by dangling something 'EVIL" in front of the paladin. Where as it might have to be something personally beneficial or personally threatning to the wizard or rogue.

#3: Well, LG Pallys can't associate with evil. They can't even redeem evil if you go RAW since that would be associating. They can only stab or avoid evil.

So since DMs usualy like LG Pallys (except the ones who like to make them fall for fun): they would rarher no evil.
If there are no Pallys in party: they can't use this excuse.

[Midnight_v]

Further, it doesn't hurt the narrative any WHAT I have on my character sheet... being on "Team Evil" is just another sub-set of being on "Team Hero"

Depends on the campaign, I think. You can certainly run with "Red vs Blue" style alignments, where the only real difference is whether you smite people with holy radiance or necromantic hellfire. But you can also run it "Evil is actually not a good thing" style, where even the most suave, honorable-seeming demon turns out to do really unpleasant things, such that you no longer want to be in the same room as them once you find out.

I'll give you that. Some of that I read very simliar in the tome series to some extent. Though really thats what devils ARE doing when you're not looking, absoultely so, but seriously I'm thinking the first one is more important here, because it really is silly that every warlock you encounter and party with is just angsty in an Twilight vampire kinda way, instead of just being a bad dude, who is a hero because well, Who the fuck wants to live in a land ruled by the aboeth and thier skum lords. Once you fall out with them you pretty much HAVE to oppose them in someway because its like falling out with any power unforgiving entity. They're going to screw you when they get a chance.
That shits workable, but people are dicks about it...

Which reminds me.

1) The evil PC doesn't get a chance to act upon their evilness or doesn't do anything really that bad. Their evilness is just then an Informed Attribute and they could've just as easily been Neutral or whatever, they just get off to writing Evil on their sheet

You realize there's NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT if thats what they like. . . except again there are fucking feats, required "Evil", Mortalbane comes to mind... and classes like assassin no fuck that the job "Assassin" that is relatively evil.

Lastly it is covered in the tome now that I think of it. The worthy opponent AND The banalatiy of evil:

Many DMs will want to play their fiends pretty much like Nazis – their agenda is hateful, but in their off
time they go hang out at the pub just like everyone else. You could even sit there with them and drink together
unless you happen to be a Jew. This is the default assumption of a lot of Planescape literature, for example.
An Evil creature is Evil because it ever does Evil things, not because it’s necessarily doing any Evil right now.

I'm just like Lago has to define: Getting to act on their evil.

[TheFlatline]

I've always allowed evil characters in my party. The only alignment I'm wary of is Chaotic Evil. That just doesn't strike me as a PC capable alignment, especially for a long term campaign.

But LE or NE? Hell yeah. I'm fine with that. Neutral Evil is great. You're out for yourself, and if the party wants your services, you have to benefit from it consistently.

Lawful Evil is maximizing whatever you can get away with within the laws and agreements you're bound by, more or less.

Then again, I always advise evil character players that they may well end up dead by the party's hand. If they can live with that, then I'm cool with it.

[Lago PARANOIA]

What I read YOUR idea its like what Molochio says "FUCK THAT SHIT FOREVER"

Uh, no. There is no grey area when it comes to evil. There's a line of acceptable, but annoying behavior and unacceptable behavior. That's it. It doesn't matter whether your evil act is 'go Jack Bauer on a few criminals when the party is out of the room' or 'eat babies in your spare time'. If you cross a line you cross a line. While the fireworks would be more dramatic for the latter, the fact remains that the end result (the party has a group-destroying confrontation) is the same.

That's why I said that you want to play a Disney-flavored anti-hero. You want to do 'evil' things but not be evil enough to actually cause problems. Guess what? The amount of evil you have to do to cross the unacceptable line is very small.


Here's an exercise for everyone on this topic wondering why Evil characters aren't more allowed. Why don't you come up with a list of five things that an Evil person can do that doesn't threaten group cohesion if the other Good teammates find out. Then explain why an Evil person is allowed to do these things without breaking character but a Neutral person is not.

If some dude is interrorgating prisoners via torture it should be brief and handled by a intimidate check + modifiers for showing the tools or whatever. However its fucking hypocritcal to be like "How horrific" when otherwise the mage is just going to find some way to mind Rape it out of him anyway.

And you're under the impression that Good or even neutral teammates don't have a problem with this? I'm beginning to see the real problem here.

When really people want to play MAYBE Darth vader or someshit, and they're not allowed, its fucking stupid.

(emphasis mine)

My reading comprehension isn't bad, I just didn't give you the answer you liked apparently. Or you have a really fucked up moral perspective. Or you just like making other people put up with your disruptive character.

I mean, I know dumbass fanboys and George Lucas has tried their very hardest to whitewash the character, but Darth Vader is totally an evil bastard who tortures, oppresses, and kills people without a second thought.

Unless you mean 'Maybe Darth Vader' as in: sure, he looks like Skeletor or Mumm-Ra but doesn't actually go around stealing or killing! In which case his evilness puts him in Disney Anti-Hero territory or an Informed Attribute.

[MGuy]

In all my DnD experiences with having people insist on being evilI'd have to say that Lago is completely right here. I've not had a person REALLY explore being an evil person without the entire party basically being evil.

When you start committing acts that can really be labeled as evil all the other characters have a choice. To stop you or to let it go. If you witness something that hinges on evil happen repeatedly and you let it go each time then you are evil. At least if you're able to stop it which other party members should reasonably be able to do.

[Molochio]

@Lago PARANOIA: Your ability to grasp the spectrum of evil is stunted.

There exist within team evil more than psychotic madmen who are unable to contribute to a group setting and disney villains.
There are clerics of tyranny who follow laws to the highest order and uphold order in the land while at the same time crushing what some might perceive as "freedom."
There are dwarven warriors who wage genocide campaigns against goblins who haven't done anything offensive.
There are telepaths who read minds and sale the private information gained for personal enrichment.

These facets of evil are valuable in a game setting, but often not what someone has in mind when they decide to "be evil."

[Lago PARANOIA]

There exist within team evil more than psychotic madmen who are unable to contribute to a group setting and disney villains.

All of the examples you quoted are exact examples of Evil that would break up a group or cause the Good/Neutral PCs to experience character derailment.

These facets of evil are valuable in a game setting, but often not what someone has in mind when they decide to "be evil."

Again, I'd love to hear what these mythical facets are that won't cause a group-breaking confrontation if the Good/Neutral characters find out.

[Midnight_v]

My reading comprehension isn't bad, I just didn't give you the answer you liked apparently. Or you have a really fucked up moral perspective. Or you just like making other people put up with your disruptive player.

Or maybe your just projecting.
I've not said anything about any actual in game behavior.
You know like you suggest in your obnoxious loud red letters.
Still a priori you come in talking shit and suggesting shit about me without merit. Really you just being a [EDITED]. What we can't say [EDITED] here on the den? Starts with a "C" rhymes with a type of cake.

And you're under the impression that Good or even neutral teammates don't have a problem with this? I'm beginning to see the real problem here.

Liar. Stop lying.
When the fuck do you see anyone having a problem with them moral implications of the Charm line of spells? You're mind raping them right there when you use magical coercion to force answers out of them against thier will. Which is why the "Kantian Paladin" in the tome has that as a restriction. I mean really who do you think your kidding?

Further that Neutral people would be by definition neutral to said actions "torture for the answers" in this case... so no they wouldn't inherently have a problem with it. It totally depends on the circumstances and the individual character.
The thing that strikes me as so puzzling about your post is first the gusto at which you attack the topic, you're one of those baggage types obviously. I mentioned this in the op, "Some people won't even discuss it" you're the other end of that, some people get really pissy about it.
Finally, the thing is this... your ideas seem flawed.
1. Most D&D characters kill monsters. They don't do it for "good" they do it because its going to kill them if its not, they stop an evil necromancer from recreating resident evil or whatever, not because "It's EVIL" but because there's no real alternative. They're actually killing that red dragon for it horde and most times "Hobgoblins!" is met with an initiative role before any talking has happened.
2. D&D characters DON'T do good works. They DON'T build homes for the poor, or spend spells perday casting heroes feast in the slums of a city, or walking around casting continual flame lighting the roads along rural areas. They spend all their gold an resources attaining power. Another +1 here and there, and those that do are donating money to thier church, or cause, which... really adds to thier own power (via prestige if nothing else) largely intagibly.
Where I'm going with that is you really set up a odd paragdigm by that measuring stick by that "thin" line rubric most pc's are solidly neutral. Which in your book is "good" or at least largely anti-evil.
I think you may be being disingenuous but I don't know you well enough to say for sure. Okay.
Also okay is this "Disney evil" you talk about, if people want to play that they should totally be allowed to. Most of the people in here so far have said they allow evil pc's anyway. So I have learned something from our discourse lago. Majority rule btw would say your wrong so far but... still.
I understand why people refuse to discuss it, it like talking religion with true believers in real life, invariably someones gonna defend one side in an aggressive, or eventually take something offensively and well thing like this.
I've given your perspective enough time though, I'm gonna take your term "Disney Evil" and present it to other people, see if I can sell it.
Shake your dick Lago, this pissing contest if over.

[Xenologer]

Again, I'd love to hear what these mythical facets are that won't cause a group-breaking confrontation if the Good/Neutral characters find out.

I've had characters who have had to be held back from doing unacceptable things by their adventuring party. The most notable example was a woman who would do basically anything for people she considered "us" (no matter what it meant for "them").

So for her team, she would cook for them and clean for them and she literally darned their goddamn socks. She would also hold innocent men, women, and children hostage to ensure that her team came back to her in one piece, because those other people are somebody else's problem. She has been known to get rid of people who threatened her team by butchering and cooking them.

These were things which came up later, and when she said, "But I did it for you!" they knew it was true, and were in the uncomfortable position of having to explain to her why her devotion to them was not sufficient reason to get up to these callous sorts of shenanigans. Generally the best they could do was get her to stop that shit for the sake of their peace of mind.

95% of the time there was no problem or indication that she might require constant supervision (or perhaps a life spent in a soft rubber room with a box of Crayolas and some non-toxic paste). 95% of the time Lago would be totally right and putting "LE" or "NE" on her character sheet absolutely would have been pointless flavor. It's the other 5% of the time that she took normal urges and values and took them far beyond sense.

I waver between LE and LN, because honestly the only thing wrong with her is that she cares too much about her own people and not enough about anybody else's. Lots of people behave like that without having the "evil" descriptor, but a good case could be made that that kind of callousness is evil.

Then again, a good case could be made that Batman is all alignments, so... yeah, so much for good cases.

[Molochio]

@Lago: I don't see how my killing all the goblins in this cave and every cave there after and taking their stuff will dissolve the party...
This is standard operating procedure. They're just monsters to your average PC afterall,thus the moral ramifications of goblin genocide go largely without being considered.

[Avoraciopoctules]

Here's an exercise for everyone on this topic wondering why Evil characters aren't more allowed. Why don't you come up with a list of five things that an Evil person can do that doesn't threaten group cohesion if the other Good teammates find out. Then explain why an Evil person is allowed to do these things without breaking character but a Neutral person is not.

Sounds like it could be fun. Let's give it a shot:

1. In backstory, PC really didn't like something that was way more dangerous than them. So they murdered their family as part of a fiendish deal to get evil power with which to beat this thing up, and didn't really regret it afterwards. Since then, they've been acting like pretty upstanding hero-types, but if the party faces an enemy above their metaphorical weight class, the PC will bring up horrifying sacrifices to fell powers as a weapon of last resort. Will happily accept alternatives if they've got a decent chance to work.

2. When an obviously evil force offers to collaborate with the party in exchange for them overlooking some of its nefarious stuff, the PC will clearly indicate that he/she doesn't particularly care about the evilness of this potential ally, but will abide by the group's decision.

3. When another PC expresses sorrow over killing stuff, the evil PC will confide that he/she enjoyed it, and suggest coping measures to deal with the guilt. Will attempt to sell the idea that if doing horrible stuff "seems necessary", you might as well enjoy it so that someone is happy.

4. After the party corners a villain the evil PC considers particularly suave or stylish, the evil PC will argue for mercy towards them on the grounds that the evil PC considers this villain "cool" and does not care about most of the victims, but will grudgingly go with the group's decision.

5. Evil PC will adopt a cute animal, and then jokingly suggest that the party leader should prove their ability to make hard decisions by kicking said critter precisely 2 times. Will laugh whether the party leader follows through or not.

Interesting exercise. Should I explain why each of these is Evil, but not Neutral for the purposes of the vague and sometimes self-contradictory alignments I've got in mind now?

[Archmage]

We needed another thread thoroughly proving that alignment was dumb.

[quanta]

There exist within team evil more than psychotic madmen who are unable to contribute to a group setting and disney villains.
There are clerics of tyranny who follow laws to the highest order and uphold order in the land while at the same time crushing what some might perceive as "freedom."
There are dwarven warriors who wage genocide campaigns against goblins who haven't done anything offensive.
There are telepaths who read minds and sale the private information gained for personal enrichment.

These facets of evil are valuable in a game setting, but often not what someone has in mind when they decide to "be evil."

You're really not seeing how the first two characters might be a serious issue? Sure, there might not be a problem, but how can you guarantee it without basically saying, "Yeah, I won't actually act out my evil if it comes down to it?" I mean shit, if your guarantee is "I'll be evil, but only the evil other players are clearly comfortable with" you may as well just be neutral.

And the telepath could be neutral.

Seriously, Lago's basically right. If you want to play evil, then it should be an evil game or a "go kill shit and take their stuff game", but if other people want to play actual good characters, everyone else in the group should be someone who says "Yeah, I'd enjoy the possibility of party members working at cross-purposes, and I'd enjoy locking up your PC and/or killing them if I figured out they were up to shit my PC found unacceptable." There's a couple evil characters that might be fine like a mercenary assassin who is on the another PC's pay roll, but that character could... be neutral.

[Xenologer]

There's a couple evil characters that might be fine like a mercenary assassin who is on the another PC's pay roll, but that character could... be neutral.

A neutral assassin might almost be better than an evil one, because if you get somebody on the job who really has a personal lust to cause suffering, you end up with unprofessional behavior like Mister Blonde, and that's not actually necessarily what employers want to see. Do the job, no more and no less than you're told, prove you did it, get paid. Don't go all psycho about it; it's just work.

[CatharzGodfoot]

It goes without saying that Evil isn't always the same in different peoples' minds.

What matters is that the game isn't ruined by anyone's personal concept of Good and Evil. If you're playing a hack-and-slash game, debating the morality of killing goblin villagers who are only defending their own territory might be disruptive. That kind of Good isn't good for the game.

In the same game, torturing said goblin villagers for fun an profit might also be disruptive, because people just aren't normally comfortable with imaginary torture even when they're fine with imaginary murder.

You can ruin a game by acting Good or Evil; what specific actions go 'too far' depend entirely on the game. As usual, it's up to the players to come to some kind of (usually informal) consensus, which is difficult because nobody has the same ideas of what a character of a certain alignment is going to act like.

Anyway, knock yourselves out. Defining and exploring the meanings of alignment can only be good for the game, so long as it's reasoned.

[Dean]

Lago is right about basically everything here.

Keep posting Lago, so I don't have to.

Also Midnight: Using the phrase "Liar. Stop lying!" in a debate makes you come across as a child. You write like a normal person, I assume you are normatively intelligent. That is a silly response.

[Midnight_v]

We needed another thread thoroughly proving that alignment was dumb.

Sorry bout that archmage I thought, and have largely been correct that I'd get some none "ragequit" answers here at then den.

There's a couple evil characters that might be fine like a mercenary assassin who is on the another PC's pay roll, but that character could... be neutral.

You know the thing about that is that the Assassin (the class at least) is any evil. Thats a part of the issue. Also, well thats the thing Lago's talking about, "Disney Evil" in someways is represented when we say "This guy kills people for money, but he's strictly a neutral professional about it". Again alignment is stupid and you should probbably allowed to literally write "Angsty" at the top of the paper somewhere instead, or whatever...
Cause kinda like Lago Snickered when I said "Darth Vader" which is really what some people want to play...okay some of them are deathknight or whatever it translates to in your game, buts as long as there's the requirement to be evil anywhere in the game and Dm's are being wonky about it because thier afraid you're going to end up trying to play Jeffery Dahmer instead it's really killing character concepts.
Or as suggested above it should just be accepted that writing evil at the top of the page doesn't require you to DO anything evil, similar to how being "good" doesn't require you to DO any real "good" out side of "Kill team monster".

@ CatharzGodfoot. I really appreciate your point of view here. I've been in games with both stupid good and stupid evil. I have literally been stopped from killing Kobolds, because someone said "Wait, were stonger than them, its wrong to kill them... we dont' even Speak Kobold..."
I mean for fucksakes its level 1 man, just let us ding...
Also playing earthdawn, I had a paladin charge some "horror" that was higher level than us and obviously meant to show the powers we were up against, as it was all giant kaiju in the remants of a city... so what does he do? Calls the Demon lord or whatevre right on over to where were hiding at level 3 or whatever...
That shits just as annoying as the Chaotic "Neutral" Babarian that kills the king in the court and puts on the crown right as the kings giving our reward. . . or the rogue that steals from the party.
That shit has little to do with alignment and more about piss poor decision making/anit-social role playing, and thats what everyone's against.
That and the fact that people are totally still going to be Chaotic Evil assholes under the guise of Chaotic Neutral. Or True Neutral Assasins (job not class) who can kill without remorse.

And the whole torture thing doesn't even require that you actually start breaking shit and branding dudes... just show them the tools, and get a + 4 bonus on your intimidate check. The thing is its not a bluff check also... also its not just Mindrape: Charm, Dominate, suggestion spam... oh and speak with dead of course! People do cast those spell regularly without the Waaambulance being called because they have "Neutral/Lawful Good" at the top, and it this dichotomy that has started to raise this Ire in me.
Which is why I'm asking, which is why I seriously wanting to make the How to play Team:Evil guide.
Its baffling how many people are okay with anything you do as long as you write "Neutral" on top, instead of the truth.
Further, that insane defiance feat, and or willing deformity: Madness sure looks good. . . among other things. Like oh "tomb tainted soul" for instance.
So... so far,
1. Address that sometimes. people are going to be unreasonable about the request from the outset. Detail the "why's" and give an explaination the expected arguments.
2. Find a way to sell the decision as valid and non disruptive. Sell it as "Disney Evil"
3. Discuss the Pros' and Con's of just Writing "Neutral" at the top of your paper and doing whatever the hell it is you want ANYWAY (...be the parties Jack Bauer, MindRape as the beguiler, Cast Summon undead as much as you want. You're neutral).
4. But MOST importantly come up with a list of things You CANNOT DO, when playing for team evil, How to handle (prevent) party infighting, Things to do in Vegas when your evil. Mostly, reiterate WHY it is people are so againt the concept in the first place, and break that rubric personally. I like the "You can be the guy who suggests, the horrible choices" that makes sense, cause someone where in the world was someone who actually first said "We should go ahead and drop the atomic bomb on one of thier cities" that had to be said for it to have actually happened. Someone gets to be the voice of Pragmaticism.
(Little known fact Pragmaticism is often villianized as Evil)

Edit: @ the above poster Deanrule... Really? I was unaware, that the comment sounded particularly unreasonable, I'll make sure to tone it down to a much more reasonable level. Thank you for that insightful and much needed correction.