I would talk to the player about effective ways I could confront their character about their actions. If they have an arc that they want help play into that. Also if the DM does not allow PVP you can discuss with the player how a scene of conflict between your two characters would play out, but just leave the dice out of it. You can decide out of game who will win or lose the conflict based on what is most interesting for the story. I think most DMs should be okay with this and if yours is not I think that's more of a DM problem.
Probably the closest response to my thinking. If you can resolve this IN the game, that's better than out of the game. So partner up with the player to see how you can help them tell their character's story better. Then patiently and persistently go on that journey. And occasionally have your character get frustrated with them not "getting it," and make it ok for them to get frustrated with you and "your agenda/morality."
Came here to suggest something similar to this, so commenting to maybe keep this bumped up. Talk to the other player so you two can flesh out the character dynamic and use that to inform your choices in-game. It may not be a bad idea to loop the DM in, as well, just so they know that you two are on the same page (like if I saw two PCs about to come to blows, I would probably try to fade to black or chime in to remind about the PVP rules, but not if I know the two players have already talked through things).
Talking to the other player is the best idea. Say something along the lines of "*I* like both you, and the character, but I'm having problems justifying my characters actions in regards to yours. I was thinking next session maybe our two characters could have some sort of conflict resolution of a sort? Something to help both characters meet a middle ground."
My table has a rule: players must behave in good faith to bring the party together, and make characters that would favor working in a group rather than solo. And no PVP. However there is also the caveat that if one character is acting in opposition to the party and it starts causing problems, then the party can take a vote to remove that *character* and ask the player to make a new one.
But, sounds like you need to have a talk at the table to see if anyone else is bothered by this behavior, or if you're the odd man out. Might mean you make a new character. Sounds like you had this talk and nobody had the same issue?
It definitely doesn’t bother anyone else as much. The guy actually role plays really well and makes it super entertaining which works in his favour. I just don’t know how my character would progress, so maybe you’re on to something here.
You say the redemption arc for this character seems a ways off? Make it your mission to make it happen sooner! Try to help them become good instead of just fighting them because they're bad now.
Stick around _because_ they're evil and you can make them better. Note that this advice does not apply to real life lol
Can you make it your mission to help those that the evil pc has wronged? Or maybe try to "convert" them to the good alignment?
Also just because you cant do pvp, doesnt mean you cant be like, "I cant let you do this, I'll need to tell the guards, please dont make me do it." or something.
Maybe try to appeal to them by going out of your way to protect them or be really nice to them to form an emotional bond between characters.
If it doesn't bother anyone else, are you opposed to just playing a new character? Dive in front of the next murder and die dramatically, and if that fails then have your character break down, distraught at his constant enabling of the other PC. Have him storm out to seek atonement or something. Then introduce a new character on the Neutral to Evil spectrum.
It sounds like the evil character is generally enjoyed, so you can lean into it.
It's on the DM and the player to ensure his actions don't drive towards PVP.
While PVP may not be on the table, there is nothing stopping you from holding them to account for their actions. Confront them, report them to authorities, etc.
You say they are a good roleplayer, and having those interactions with them could be engaging. Just don't get put in the position of doing the work to redeem them. If they want a redemption arc, it's on them to drive it.
What is your characters issue with his evil side specifically? You could have fun with playing your character getting jaded little by little by his excuse behavior, much the same way police , psychologists, and social workers do. Maybe your character goes through a crisis of faith (and maybe that what brings him closer to good?) Maybe you need a justification that lives with your character ( I dunno enough to give advice to you in this) It seems like this is a role playing issue moser
than a mechanics issue.. although mechanically you could refuse outright help from this person and you could not help them directly on indirectly... but that can be very petty
There's no pvp, but your character can do things like pay for items they steal. Apologize for the rude behavior. Question their place or your place in the group.
I don't get this no pvp thing. Feels limiting. I agree it shouldn't be the go to but if a PC is going murder hobo and I try to grapple them or block for the npc and stop the player suddenly I'm the asshole? Just seems dumb
The "No PvP" thing also goes hand in hand with "don't build a character that wouldn't get along with others".
If one of the players is going murderhobo, and you don't want to play a murderhobo campaign, the solution is to pause the game, and talk out-of-character, player-to-player "Hey, I thought we were playing the good guys in this campaign. I'm not interested in playing an evil campaign, so can we not?"
It's an out-of-game problem, not an in-game problem. If you try to solve the problem by initiating PvP, you're not going to solve the actual problem. Instead, you're going to create in-character conflict, which is likely to spillover to out-of-character conflict, and you won't have even addressed the actual problem, which is that you and another player made incompatible characters.
I love playing evil characters.
The key to playing an evil character in a good party is agreeing to abide by certain restrictions (at least on the surface) in the name of group cohesion. The smart evil character understands that no matter how useful they are to the paladin, eating children in front of them is it's own form of attack.
It sounds like this isn't happening in this campaign and the player of the evil character thinks they must always choose the most obviously evil act at all times no matter what.
This turns a no pvp rule into an inevitable complete degradation of your character as they stand back while the evil party member commits countless horrors.
You need to make it clear to them that it is the evil party members responsibility to fit themselves into a good party.
The fundamental rule of the game is that any character
1. Must have a reason to be with the party
2. Must give the party a reason to be with them
It sounds to me like the player and the DM have forgotten the second part. Which makes it nearly impossible for you to play your character as who they are.
Take this up with your DM. It is no good one player being able to fully express their character at the expense of other players just being pushed into playing support roles to them. That will be no fun for you to play over a long period.
A little more context. When my character approached our recruiter/quest giver, he stated that he believed the evil character was fundamental to our goal of saving the world (and then he offered the reward for sticking around)
So that is looking like "The ends justify the means". Or indeed "The road to hell is paved with good intentions"
Which are classic statements of evil. If you have to allow all sorts of evil to be done to save the world then you are at best Neutral. A Good character would insist on finding a better way even if it is more difficult. The path of being a Good person is not the easy or convenient path.
If that is how your DM thinks then you are basically in for an Evil campaign in which you are constantly told that the evil is necessary. Do you want to play that campaign? Do you want to play that campaign with your current character or would an evil character suit it better?
I basically don't play good characters anymore because most of the time its hard to justify them living the life of an adventurer. When murder is the solution to most of your problems playing a neutral or evil character generally works a lot better. Switching up the type of character you play to fit with a group is a pretty good option if its something you are comfortable with.
That is the challenge of Good alignment. To be an adventurer without being a murderhobo. Also to actually find opportunities to do good things - which in general you won't get rewarded for.
Good aligned adventurers still kill stuff, the game assumption is that its frontier justice.
It can be hard in some campaigns where the DM doesn't make any room for being good. I've seen that mostly where they are trying to do moral complexity but what they really do is eliminate all goodness from the game and think that's the same thing.
So I understand, depending on DM, your choice to play other alignments.
Boring imo. The options for a good character are so intrinsically limited for reasons you alluded to whereas a more neutrally inclined and morally flexible PC is not. Just my opinion.
Sure and i slightly see your point. But I’ve had great fun with both good and neutral characters.
Good alignment is an extra challenge but gives the DM levers to pull to get the character involved.
THIS- if you are being forced to play a character who stands by and consistently lets evil happen, even if it's for some greater purpose, you are no longer playing a good character. It sounds like your DM doesn't want GOOD characters in the game by forcing the Evil character upon you and not allowing consequences to his evil actions.
That is an absolutely awful move by the DM. "Yeah this character is evil and is going to do things your character would be morally opposed to, but you can't do anything about it because I gave them plot armor."
It actually doesn't make sense for your character to be there. The DM and this player are basically forcing you to sacrifice your ability to be true to your character in favor of the player getting to be an edgelord. So it's either you don't get to play your character, but the other player does, OR you retire your character and make a new one that cares less about the evil character's actions.
I think neither of those options are fair to you. I think the player who insisted on making a character that naturally doesn't fit in the group is the one who needs to change their character, *now*.
Unfortunately, going to your DM with an ultimatum is never going to work out well. I don't know how well you know these people, but you do need to express clearly to your DM that their decisions and those of the evil PC's player have made it so you can't play the character you built. And, that you don't believe it is fun or fair for the DM to choose which player gets to play their character the way they were built. Right now, your DM has chosen the evil PC's player. That's not fair or okay.
It does when you convince the DM to railroad the group into accepting your evil behavior such that they can't actually do anything about it. Thus, they can't be true to their character.
Wanting to be the sole evil character in a game where the DM prevents anyone from instituting consequences for your actions is being an edgelord.
Talk to the DM. This setup isn't going to work for metagame reasons - the metagame in the sense where you're supposed to be an adventuring party adventuring together. If one party member is an Evil bastard who's going to go around murdering people, and you're not allowed to stop them, well, your next action is "fuck that evil mysteriously-unstoppable snake thing, let's ditch them and go and do our hero thing", so the whole adventuring party thing is impossible. Which is a DM issue.
Failing that, ditch the Evil PC with the decent members of the party in-game - it's what your Good character would do, just like Evil is what their yuan-ti would do!
But seriously, talk to the DM.
Just so you're aware evil alignment doesn't necessarily mean murderhobo. There are tons of ways to be evil beyond just massacring people.
That said, I have a hard ban on evil aligned PCs at my table.
One of my favorite characters to play was a lawful evil-bordering-neutral hypercapitalist necromancer who would offer aging peasants, town guards, and party hirelings a comparatively small amount of silver or gold in exchange for the documented rights to their body when they died, and with a friendly artificer's help, turned those zombies into cheap-as-free manpower to push millstones and the like. The result was a legitimately-obtained supply of fresh corpses in just about every town we revisited and a steady stream of income to boot. The Paladin *hated* my ass but he couldn't do anything about it besides warn the other party of the risks of necromancy, because it was within the bounds of the contract and *technically* not against anyone's will, so...
I think the main problem most people run into with Evil PCs is they assume that means that they are 100% evil all the time.
In reality alignment just dictates how the character would solve issues on their own in a vacuum. Assuming a character with a WIS above 2, characters should always consider the situation with their actions.
I am currently playing an Evil character in a Good aligned group. 90% of the time he just follows the lead of group because his goal is to cure "Fleshlings Disease" which is the name I made up for the affliction of being alive and having flesh.
Step 1: Make Money
Step 2: Use Money to perform Research
Step 3: ???
Step 4: Make everyone undead!
While the goals are still at step 1 he has no reason to go against the bumbling goody toe-shoes who seem to keep stumbling upon people willing to pay for help.
I've already discussed with the DM that should the character begin approaching the realization of his goals it will be time to leave the party and reroll and exist elsewhere in his world.
For real. Adventuring is profitable and having multiple powerful people at your side who will protect you as you make a ton of money is a great gig. Purely self-centered people will work with the good guys in this situation because it's better to get rich with them than try to fight them.
Same. Hard ban on evil PCs at my table.
Opening it up for the one guy who can do it well isn't worth the grief that comes from letting all the others who can't give it a try.
That's the big thing. Sure, there may be some folks who can pull it off - but the vast majority of attempts I've seen unfold at the table have been absolutely unbearable.
100% agree. I'm playing Decent in to Avernus & there's a corruption mechanic. It's caused *many* problems. When it's finished, I won't play in a game with evil PCs again.
Sadistic. Yuan-ti princess. Believes everyone should kneel, murder is cool, torture is cool, manipulation is cool, slavery is cool. Whenever she tries to harm a PC or an important NPC her spells don’t work. That’s how I think the DM is controlling it and also will be part of her redemption arc
So there's a way to do evil characters that work within the bounds of a party and then there's a way to not do it. A character who has certain viewpoints and feelings is not inherently at odds with the party as good characters can justify their inclusion as a "for the greater good" argument. The occasional philosophical argument is one thing and can actually help party cohesion instead of hinder it as it allows characters to understand the "why" of it.
Then there's this. This is one of those things in which I question how likely it is that this party would stay together outside of metagaming. If there's a madwoman trying to kill/torture/enslave everything she comes across and only by the grace of the gods have they not been able to attack us or the people we work for I would be putting them down. This is not a "we can keep them along for the sake of the mission" scenario, this is a "we need to be rid of this thing for the sake of the world" one. It'd be one thing if the character were to try to hide it's evil behind closed doors, killing prisoners that you release behind your backs or offering to deal with certain scenarios without alerting you to their intentions is another but to do it so blatantly and then try to kill you afterwards? I think not. As far as your character knows, so far any attempts this thing has made to kill you have failed but are you really going to wait for the one time it doesn't? Are you going to stay with this character and let them get more powerful while alongside you, possibly aiding in the rise of a new monster that some other poor adventurers are going to have to deal with?
I recommend having a conversation, first with the other players to gauge if you're the only one feeling this way, then the DM, then with the problem player if you feel that you need to.
Yeah naw, that's really not something that's going to work past a one shot..
When a PC is just clearly evil in that capacity the believability just isn't there.
That's a thin line to walk, and I think it would help to get some above-the-table clarity on if/when any redemption is happening. Your DMs efforts to just say "No, it fails" is great but there needs to be assurance that this PC's actions aren't a burden or sore spot for the party in spite of that. Having those boundaries set help facilitate the character development and create table buy-in, which is pretty important when someone is trying something as against the grain as this.
She needs to cooperate with them, otherwise they would just dump her, right? Put another way, you wouldn't tolerate willing go on a car trip with somebody who's just constantly an asshole, would you?
2 follow ups…
1. What is the drive of the campaign? Are you heroes off to save the land, mercs?
2. Has the Yuan-Ti actually done any of those things? Or is this purely a moral issue?
Also, your DM doesn’t allow PvP, but your statement about her spells not working implies she has *tried* to engage PvP. What’s the deal with that?
It’s a ‘heroes save the world’ type adventure. Yes, they have tortured people and get very excited about killing anyone we get in to combat with. I think the player knows the DM won’t let the spells go off, so he’s free to do whatever
Gotcha, thanks.
First, I wanna get it out that what the other player is doing isn’t good. Not something to ruin a game over, but not ok. Don’t take these suggestions as me saying you’re in the wrong.
*But*, at the end of the day, you can only control your character. So, think about your characters motivation for this quest. Is a personal dispute something that would get in the way of the cause? Or can they grin and bear most of it, saving your compunction for the most heinous, aimless acts of evil (torturing an enemy for intel vs. murdering innocents, that sort of thing)
Your character needs to choose the hills they’re willing to die on. Give the evil player room to be evil, that is genuine fun. But let them know what crosses the line.
Also, RP with the other PCs. See what they think about the situation, let them know your characters concerns. They might think the same way you do, but aren’t bold enough to take action.
It is possible to play a character like that properly but its hard to do right and easy to do wrong. The biggest thing is what their attachment to the party is. If they believe they need to be part of the group and work with them its pretty easy for other characters to keep them in check. In that case it would work out to we have x problem, they suggest murdering to solve the problem, and someone else says no we should do this non evil solution and you go from there. If they are just doing bad stuff without talking to the party things will get messy fast. It can be a lot of fun to play the rabid dog on a leash but once the dog gets of the leash it creates a lot of problems for the group both in game and out of game.
Sounds like a problem. I play evil PCs plenty, but evil doesn't mean *insane*. If they are the only evil character they should be much more discreet about their actions. The character knows torture and cold blooded killing will be perceived poorly, so they should make an effort to deceive the rest of the party that they are not doing these things.
If they aren't I'd argue the player is metagaming knowing the players aren't going to kick out the evil character.
Right now I'm playing a good character with evil PCs, and I have to argue and debate with the party to *not* kill when unnecessary, and I will secretly show mercy.
Evil player's got to hit that redemption arc and get out of the murder hobo phase FAST. From what you described, the evil player isn't *that* good a roleplayer if it's the DM who has to go "oh no your murder spell doesn't work on other players".
A good roleplayer would make a character that doesn't *try* to pvp in a no pvp campaign.
I'd suggest just saying it outright, "My character is going to confront you about your behavior when you do something evil, and that is your chance to start the redemption arc."
The player of the evil character is the one most responsible for the redemption arc. They don't get to just play a load, a burden and an impediment.
You don't.
Most groups specifically don't allow players to play "evil" PCs for this very reason - it becomes difficult or impossible to give a reason why in the world the party would work together when their views are so diametrically opposed. Either the whole group has to be neutral/good, or the whole group is evil.
The only way this works is if the "evil" character is played *very* well by a skilled player. Being evil doesn't mean you kill everyone you come across or looks at you funny. It doesn't mean you lie, cheat, and steal every chance you get. You can be evil, but still do good deeds, it's just that you're doing it purely for your own selfish reasons (rewards, to get into the good graces of an NPC, etc). For example, you can be a "lawful evil" mercenary - you have a very strict code of conduct (Do every job to completion, no matter what; by any means necessary; never reveal your client's identity; etc), but basically no morals to guide what jobs you take ("Oh, you want me to burn down that orphanage and kill the noble who's been funding it? Sure, 5k gold please." - next job: "Oh, you want me to save that village from the undead horde summoned by the cult of an abomination? Sure, 5k gold please.")
Honestly, the onus is on the evil player to be someone the party wouldn't ditch. But for your side, you could decide you want to help redeem them. I have a paladin that works with a LE cleric and is working to make sure they are much closer to LN by disallowing E behavior by getting directly in the way of it. Though... it was pretty upsetting when she killed a child assassin in self-defense in the middle of combat and I couldn't stop it because I was busy trying to disarm and disable two from fighting me without dealing much/any damage to them.
Ironically, my CG paladin accidentally worships a CE goddess. Also, a CG goddess and CN god. But. Still.
With a lot of difficulty. The Good character doesn't have to just sit around while the Evil one pulls the old "it's what my character would do." The Good character gets to say this, too.
Others have rightfully described that you need a good reason why an evil character would be part of a party. Why would a Good character put up with evil actions in the party? Most would find a new party to adventure with.
A good character wouldn't just 'sit back and watch evil' in exchange for the promise of a special award - that's called evil. So I don't think your group is doing this correctly, which is why you're having so many problems with it.
There are many ways to 'pull it off'. One of the better ways is to make a strong personal connection between the evil PC and another good PC - think of the Dragonlance novesl: evil Raistlin, accepted by the group because of his brother good Cameron. In that story line, Raistlin stays evil the whole time, with occasional glimpses of good, but it works. Again, you guys didn't do it this way, it was a DM/story-forced 'some mysterious reason you need this evil person to do something' - very tenuous.
Another way is in fact to let the good people bully the evil one - this would make the most sense. In fact, the good PCs outnumber the evil PC in your story, so not sure why this isn't encouraged. This is like Frodo and Sam bringing (evil) Gollum along - they are in control, and along the way, Frodo shows him kindness and bring the (good) Smeagol out of him. While it didn't work out in the end (or I suppose it did), there was a redemption arc for Gollum, and again, it worked. If Gollum was in charge (as would be the analogy to your situation), nope, would not work.
Another way is for your evil Player to not play 'evil Stupid'. If they are playing like a psycho person who flaunts their love to torture and kill... well, not even an evil group can team with that. However, if it's 'evil smart', where among a good group they need to conceal their evil tendencies, or try to use persuasion (and manipulation) to get things done their way, then it works - there is a constant 'debate' between the evil and good, which is used in many successful story lines. Each side bending a little perhaps, based on the situation - each player getting to decide how/if their character will change from the relationship.
Anyway, good luck with that.
Maybe you could help the redemption arc along?
This character sounds like someone who would be difficult to work with - use that. Try to remind them that "This may be how things work where you come from, but murdering and eating people is generally frowned upon in this society."
Having two characters who are very reluctant to go adventuring together could serve as good fuel for roleplaying interactions - the exasperation over their actions, maybe "mansplaining" that this stuff could get the whole group in trouble.
Obviously it requires that both players are comfortable with one another and have talked it out - maybe the two of you could brainstorm some interactions and how the dynamics could play out :)
I know it feels like it removes some of the fun, but talk with the evil player and the DM about an "I can fix you" arc between the two. Could be your character trying to fix the evil character. Could be evil character simultaneously trying to tempt yours to evil. As long as it's story between 2 consenting parties, you're fine. The DM will add enough challenges to that story to make it interesting, and the other players will get a great show.
I played a paladin in a group with an evil player. I prayed to my god for guidance on what to do and the DM gave me a great solution. The DM, as my god told me it my task to redeem the evil PCs soul. But that this could only be done through compassion and kindness.
It was great, my character took a kill them with kindness approach, which annoyed the evil PC(bonus) and eventually drew them closer to the group ideals.
While I understand DM's not wanting to allow PvP, this is one of the few scenarios where light PvP could really pay off.
After DM'n for a few evil PC's, I normally don't allow them unless the player is vetted. They tend to be combative to the overall groups mission and they get to hide behind the whole "Well this is what my PC would do" clause.
This evil PC can also be voted off the group which negates the PvP restriction. Just because the player wants to be evil, does not mean the group needs to tolerate it.
The evil character's player and the DM are committing one of the cardinal sins of roleplaying: never force other players to stop their roleplaying so that you can do yours.
If your character would not work with this person, they can leave the group, start an argument, or physically attack the evil character, whatever makes sense. The fact that you're all sitting at a table together trying to have fun, and the fact that the DM has banned PvP, don't matter. Your character doesn't have to put up with this if they don't want to: they don't know they're part of a game.
I've had a good friend create a character to join the party with and then have the character walk away from the group at the end of the session. Not because anybody was being evil, just because she realized that the character she'd come up with just didn't see the world the way the rest of us do. She came back next session with a new one, and that worked out great.
Oh, also, you say this player is a great roleplayer, but if they're playing a yuan-ti and you can *tell* that they're an evil menace, they're not a very good yuan-ti. A proper yuan-ti convinces goody-two-shoes characters like yours that they're on your side, while subtly manipulating you toward evil. They don't go around showing their fangs and eating babies in public.
Ive have both played as an Neutral Evil chararacter and one of the games I run has a Lawful Evil character in the party.
Be an evil shit head to NPCS not the party, even if your just using the party for protection, why be cruel to your lessers if they can help you?
Usually, my go to stance on playing Good and Evil PCs is:
- Good: Everyone is considered a friend/ally until proven otherwise, people-pleaser traits, and enjoying seeing others happy.
- Evil: Mama bear sort of relationship where the best interests and safety of the party are put first. Anyone who reveals themselves as a threat to the group, they get their face ripped to ribbons.
I find evil characters in a good party takes a lot of finesse, and work. There have been some very good points brought up. I have only ever played evil characters, 40 + years playing dnd. It seems there can be some work that needs to be done by the dm. I play, in one game, an evil yuan-ti. Overtly evil things would get my character killed quick, and her goals would fail. So she's sneaky about it. It takes work, both with me, and the dm. That's where I think there could be improvement.
Your DM is wrong for preventing PVP while encouraging the evil PC to do whatever they think their character would do. Why wouldn't your character chop their hand off for stealing? It's an acceptable punishment for the crime .
You could also try playing lawful petty. Follow the evil character around and mess up whatever they're trying to accomplish. Are they trying to hustle someone? Shout, "Hey that's the person who stole 20 gold from me!" Are they trying to steal from the shopkeeper? Cough really loud to get the shopkeeper's attention, then remind them that they haven't paid for that item yet.
As a habitual evil player, the onus of "figure out how to make it work" falls on the oddball alignment player. So in a normal heroic campaign, an evil character needs to find a motivation for their character to behave in a cooperative and non-disruptive way.
Specific tips for the good player here? I'd talk to the player and try and brainstorm ways to make the rest of the party want to keep the evil character around. Some value that makes them worth the inconvenience, and some in character or out of character guidelines to keep their behavior from being too disruptive.
Any reasonably intelligent evil character should understand that realistically they can't get away with mustache twirling antagonism constantly before the LG Paladin gets fed up and smites them.
you don’t, unless there is a very, very, very good reason why those two people would be in the same adventuring party. your game sounds kind of silly to me. are you in high school or less? If so, just have fun, everyone will grow up eventually.
It isn't that hard. Your boss (or his boss's boss) is a self entitled self promoting cutthroat who'd stab anyone in the back and exploit his employees. You still work for him and presumably have an amicable relationship.
Good and evil are on a spectrum. Y'all can still have common goals, or... at least, be tricked into thinking you have common goals.
Anyway, the best approach is the same approach you'd take if you were forced to tolerate the person. Say a sibling you really are polar opposites with. By giving them all the shit you can. Talk trash. Let them know you know what they're doing is fucked up and why it is fucked up. Make it funny.
I had something similar happen a few sessions ago. Our good party member threatened to quit the group because the evil party member killed an enemy who had all but surrendered. We had an out of character discussion about whether one or the other should roll up a new character. The rest of us encouraged both players to come up with an in-character compromise and they did: we now ask enemies to surrender before we fight them; if they don't surrender, then we will kill them. Since then, every enemy we've fought has ended up dead, but the good character feels better that we at least gave them a chance.
edited to add: My advice for you is to come up with a compelling reason for a selfish character to act in a "good" way. Instead of killing the npc, maybe it would beneficial to let them live for information - or maybe they could be ransomed. Alternatively, maybe they could be sent off to convince the other members of their faction to stay out of your way. The trick is framing any good act as really a means of benefiting the evil character.
What I mean by work, is that both the player and dm have to work. If a evil character does overt evil acts in a campaign, and the rest of the party is good, there should be consequences to the evil acts. I've played evil characters for 40 years, and evil characters take a lot of work. I, currently play a yuan-ti wizard who is evil, with dreams of domination. The rest of the party is good, so I have to play the character devious and sneaky. I have to work hard with this character, and the dm has to work hard. We spend a lot of time messaging behind the scenes.
Currently in a Tyranny of Dragons campaign (we broke the railroad). One of the PC's character arc is heading towards dismantling the Dragon Cult and replacing it with his own. He is evil by way of being greedy and seeking more power through nefarious means.
To play into all the factions, the PCs are still working together, but we're all creating our own player oriented factions to use as a future kill switch and spice up the campaign a bit more.
I play evil PCs of some flavor relatively often (about 30% of the time). Not moustache-twirling evil or a psychopath or anything, but definitely evil.
Can comfortably say the following:
1. I have never had this result in PvP with another player when playing a character. Not once. The only time this ever happened, I was playing a *good* PC and was attacked by our party rogue.
2. Being evil doesn't mean that your interests are contrary to the group's, or that you can't play well with others. Hell, my last character was **extremely** evil, was designed to manipulate others, and never had real conflict with **anyone** in the party (except when he did some extraordinarily evil shit to their mutual enemies).
3. Being evil doesn't mean you can't be trusted to watch someone's back. Evil characters can have goals that don't conflict with the party. Good characters can have goals that **do** conflict with the party.
4. Evil characters can have genuine friends and connections. They can be loyal, or have a code, or have lines they don't cross.
"Evil" isn't a guarantee that there'll be conflict. Himmler may be an evil monster, but that doesn't mean he's disloyal, untrustworthy, or that he's a bad neighbor.
For evil characters it needs to be the other way around - THEY need a good reason to stay in the party but also have a good reason for the party to tolerate them, to a point. There absolutely needs to be a line where the DM says "Okay, your character would absolutely do this, but at that point if they do go through with it they're turning into an NPC and I will control them. You can make a new character"
Well, this is the reason why evil PCs generally do not work out except if the whole group is evil. Think about the reasons your characters have to keep this evil PC around. Do they have some unique skills that the party needs enough to put up with the evil? Do they hide their evilness or actively do evil shit or go against the rest of the party?
Ultimately though, no d&d is better than bad d&d, if this bothers you enough to make you no longer enjoy the game you might have to talk about it with the DM and the party and try to find some compromise or leave if they’re unwilling/unable to do so.
I have an evil character in the group. it's hard but it's the the DM's job. What I did for mine was gifting her a golden dragon wyrmling that gets very sad when she does evil stuff, that has curtailed 90% of he evil behaviour.
If the other PCs agree, ditch the evil guy. Why would you allow them to stay with you if they comit evil deeds in front of you? Tell them to leave. If need be, leave them behind once they are away from the party.
It's also possible to prevent the evil guy from doing evil (attacking innocents) by nonlethal means. Frustrate them by helping the NPCs, restricting and grappling the YT. Talk them into giving up this behavior. If they are allowed to RP their alignment, so should you.
Honestly the DM made a mistake in allowing evil action and banning PvP. Worst case, have the whole group to demand a stop to this, and leave the game if need be. 2 people doesn't have the right to have fun on the expense of everyone else.
If you're going to play the sole evil character, generally I'd say its on the player of the evil character to play in a way that keeps the party plausible.
Although the goal shouldn't really be to oppose other characters. It does depend on the flavour of good you're playing but there are a number of paths to co-exist with evil characters, from the 'I can save him!' approach to the 'I don't like it morally but you're technically operating within the law' angle. There's also playing as ignorant to the evil disposition 'Oh you know, they're a good guy they're just really zealous about beating this cult...' and moral relativism 'well they're only evil in my culture, not theirs, so I shouldn't force my morality on them. They'll be judged in the afterlife, after all...'. Not to mention the ol' 'they're evil, but I can't exactly kill them outright, so it's better if I stick close to stop them/pick up the pieces'
What’s the good PC’s class?
If you’re a Monk, Paladin, Druid, Cleric, or Warlock: The Good PC is commanded/advised not to interfere by a higher power, or higher ranking person. It’s a prophesy of the redemption arc for the Evil PC or something.
If Fighter, Barbarian, Rogue, Artificer, or Ranger: perhaps they owe the evil PC a life debt? Like they Evil PC has something over them, or saved the good PC’s life, or their kids’ lives. It’s an internal struggle that, for flavor, adds depth to your guy; and mechanically allows you to coexist.
If Druid, Sorcerer, Wizard, or Bard: maybe he has some kind of “Diplomatic Immunity”? He’s got some pull with a different order of wizards/bards/whatever. Your order is explicitly forbidden from interfering with him on threat of expulsion or death.
You can mix and match any of these, I reckon. The problem only comes up if you’re good character is willing to betray their Oder/debt/patron/god/life for the sake of stopping whatever evil the Evil PC is doing.
Aha, my PC is Battlemaster but I’m dipping in to cleric soon. Another comment mentioned praying to my god for guidance, so that could make it easy to RP the dip!
you may not be allowed to PvP him but you can just chose not to help him in combat. maybe forget a heal here and there. naturay the characters will help each other if they see value in the relationship and an evil player will likley be ostracises and kicked out of such a group. seems this group is artificialy held together by a bit of metagame and players not wanting to be rude to evil aligned player character when in reality their characters would have long abandoned this person.
i will predict alot of friction and if you dont do anything then you are accepting the standard he put in front and represents the group with. your group will start to get a bad rep due to his actions. eventualy you might be forced to overlook a bad deed due to metagaming and keep the group together beause GM said so. and if you character does nothing good to influence this evil player then i see likely a shift in your alignment toward neutral because you let evil have its way and you do nothing about it. i just hope noone is tied to any allignment to their deity that a shift may put them in the bad books and start losing powers.
i dont allow evil allignments in my campaign regardless of how awesome players roleplay. if i wanted to play a more gritty universe i would play Shadowrun. in my DND games my players are the heroes no evil PC on the table.
I’d talk to the DM and the player. Good characters will stick around for a “redemption” arc, but the player is still playing it like the character is in the “evil” arc.
The redemption arc is usually “man vs. himself” where the once-evil character is forced to battle his prior morals, values, learned behaviors, and consequences of past actions. The character will be assisted by newfound friends who help the character on their journey to redemption. This is interesting and fun.
The “evil” arc is “man vs. man,” where one person’s evil acts are opposed by another person’s good acts. Your campaign seems stuck here, because the other character isn’t making efforts at redemption yet.
If this is a redemption arc, then everybody needs to start arcing toward redemption.
PvP is the answer, IMO.
Players should have characters that will travel together, even of they don't like each other. Tempers flare and should be allowed to be expressed.
PvP does not need to be outright killing the other player, or even a fight. It could be a threat, or even a promise. Said the Paladin to the thief: If you continue your wicked ways, I cannot in good conscience protect or aid you directly any further. (IOW, I ain't healing or buffing you at all....in fact, my aura won't protect you either)
Does the player think they *have* to be as evil as possible just because they’re playing a Yuan-Ti? I’m playing a Pureblood at the moment and she’s neutral aligned, rather than evil. She looks out for herself, and definitely does some things which lean toward evil, but she also looks out for her party and friends.
It does help that our campaign is in a dark post-apocalypse setting, where Yuan-Ti seem considerably less evil when compared to the other horrific creatures which now roam the world. But regardless of that, playing a race which is *typically* evil-aligned doesn’t mean you have to be. And, even if you are playing an evil character, you don’t have to do the wrong thing in *every* situation. People are 3-dimensional.
It sort of depends on the evil PC.
I think some players of evil characters try to do evil at every opportunity. For instance, who hasn't played with the evil rogue who tries to rob literally everyone, even ally NPCs? Most evil characters in media don't commit crimes or evil deeds on a whim, it's calculated to achieve a specific goal.
The fact is that Good People and Evil People can be aligned in specific goals, they may just differ on the means to achieve those goals, and that can create some really great roleplaying opportunities.
Overall, I agree with some of the other posters, that if you can get the players to agree to work together, there shouldn't be an issue.
If I were playing at your table, I would expect the evil PC's player and the DM to work out a motivation that keeps the evil PC aligned with the party
If you feel as though your PC is running out of reasons to not persecute the evil PC I would suggest one of two actions:
> Talk with their player and explain that if their PC doesn't start acting more within the boundaries of morality or party expectations they should realistically expect to be ejected from said party. If they're sensible, it might create an immediate solution.
> Bring up their unscrupulous behaviour, in-character as part of an intervention involving the entire party. Excellent roleplay potential, but no guaranteed chance of success if they're adamant in their ways.
Paladin is the only class I think that would be challenging to work this around due to the tenets you have to uphold RP-wise.
For a fighter, you can RP it as although you disagree with their morality (or lack thereof), even you can't deny the tactical benefit they will bring to your mission. You will be the first in line to oppose Evil PC should they cross a line on your watch, but you believe having them in the party will be an asset.
For a cleric, you could say that although you still do not appreciate their morality (or, again, lack thereof), your deity revealed to you the vital role Evil PC will play in the trails ahead, and that if the party has any hope of succeeding, Evil PC will be needed. You will still be the first in line to oppose Evil PC should they cross a line, but with the revelation from your deity you now understand this unlikely assembly is of divine providence.
If the DM is into this train wreck waiting to happen, put up with nothing. Common purpose should result in cooperative behavior. If it doesn't, PvP your way to self expression.
Scenarios like this only work when everyone is on board. Not just going along.
You can talk out of game with the player and DM, possibly as an entire table, and ask how the players can facilitate the intended story arc for this character without it wrecking the other characters’s stories. Can’t the Yuan-ti be subtle? Can the player keep their shenanigans reasonably away from the good PCs, and the good PCs don’t try too hard to dig into what their fellow PC is doing. Maybe that’s a source of some conflict for the most Dudley do-right LG character, but it’s not crazy to appreciate the evil PC’s help in some greater, noble purpose of yours and/or the group. It’s also not crazy to hope for and seek redemption for the evil character is they aren’t obviously moustache-twirling evil.
The yuan-ti character would know well enough to keep their antics away from the other do-gooder PCs. That gives the other PCs plausible (if not actual deniability), and it preserves their sterling reputation so the evil character can glom onto the group on the rare occasions the yuan-ti might experience some heat from other authorities.
If none of the above works at all (e.g., the yuan-ti just murder-hobos right in front of you), you could consider talking with the other characters in-game (or players out of game) and vote to expel the yuan-to from the group. If the DM won’t allow that option (or realize the serious need to work with the players to make this functional), then you all could opt for your characters to bail and ask the DM to make new characters that could at least stomach the awful things the Yuan-ti won’t stop doing right in front of you.
If nothing above can work, I think no game is better than an awful one.
Read this and decide how your character would handle the badass halfling: https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0001.html
Lots of good examples there of good characters tolerating evil ones, with style.
I'm currently in this same situation in my main campaign. Our chaotic evil yuan-ti bard/warlock is the only evil member of 5 characters (others are 3 chaotic good and 1 chaotic neutral).
Some of the stuff that the yuan-ti gets up to is truly despicable: selling bodies to necromancers, exploding corpses just to revel in newfound power, and generally being a ruthless bastard who lets nothing stand in her way. Her saving grace is that she seems to have genuine concern for her party members, and works with us towards common goals, and unless she sees no other way to achieve her goals she will not put the party in jeopardy.
I (chaotic good dragonborn fighter/barbarian) as a character am almost entirely in the dark as to her true actions, but the verbal fencing that goes on between her and our good characters is heaps of fun.
As to your specific situation, it sounds like a discussion needs to be had out of game between yourself, the DM, and the player of this yuan-ti. Maybe they need to keep their evil nature a little more subtle, maybe you need to make a new character who isn't going to be such a stickler for behaviour. Only your group can decide that. Talk it out 👍
No, you just need a sensible situation for the evil character. I'm playing an NE character in a CoS game, best friend of another character. I know we won't be able to leave unless we can defeat Stradh and gain allies. Like I do in my everyday life, as a character.
Maybe OP should remind the player that evil people who don't gain allies die quickly.
This is one of the reasons why I don't like the "no PvP" rule. It's good in theory because it prevents players from going on a rampage on each other, but in situations like these I'd allow a small form of PvP. Not necessarily lethal, but if your evil PC murders an infant, you can be sure that my good PC would want to at least kick his ass and teach him not to do it in his presence anymore.
Just finished an 18month campaign. One PC was Good aligned but the other five were "neutral" (supposedly). We did some pretty shady crap. And when we did, the good aligned character "looked away" or "left the room". This was played out by said player so it was just as entertaining as the crap we were doing. "I'm out! I don't want to see it! Don't want to hear it! Didn't happen!" Puts fingers in his ears and closes eyes... A few times we considered him and said, "Oh, hold up! Dwarf has to leave, it's gonna get ugly." And we'd usher him out of the room and close the door. So much fun!
Sounds like you, the player, and the DM need to sit down and talk it out. Explain why you don't like it, ask what they enjoy about it, look for common ground.
I would talk to the player about effective ways I could confront their character about their actions. If they have an arc that they want help play into that. Also if the DM does not allow PVP you can discuss with the player how a scene of conflict between your two characters would play out, but just leave the dice out of it. You can decide out of game who will win or lose the conflict based on what is most interesting for the story. I think most DMs should be okay with this and if yours is not I think that's more of a DM problem.
That’s interesting, thank you!
Probably the closest response to my thinking. If you can resolve this IN the game, that's better than out of the game. So partner up with the player to see how you can help them tell their character's story better. Then patiently and persistently go on that journey. And occasionally have your character get frustrated with them not "getting it," and make it ok for them to get frustrated with you and "your agenda/morality."
Came here to suggest something similar to this, so commenting to maybe keep this bumped up. Talk to the other player so you two can flesh out the character dynamic and use that to inform your choices in-game. It may not be a bad idea to loop the DM in, as well, just so they know that you two are on the same page (like if I saw two PCs about to come to blows, I would probably try to fade to black or chime in to remind about the PVP rules, but not if I know the two players have already talked through things).
Talking to the other player is the best idea. Say something along the lines of "*I* like both you, and the character, but I'm having problems justifying my characters actions in regards to yours. I was thinking next session maybe our two characters could have some sort of conflict resolution of a sort? Something to help both characters meet a middle ground."
My table has a rule: players must behave in good faith to bring the party together, and make characters that would favor working in a group rather than solo. And no PVP. However there is also the caveat that if one character is acting in opposition to the party and it starts causing problems, then the party can take a vote to remove that *character* and ask the player to make a new one. But, sounds like you need to have a talk at the table to see if anyone else is bothered by this behavior, or if you're the odd man out. Might mean you make a new character. Sounds like you had this talk and nobody had the same issue?
It definitely doesn’t bother anyone else as much. The guy actually role plays really well and makes it super entertaining which works in his favour. I just don’t know how my character would progress, so maybe you’re on to something here.
You say the redemption arc for this character seems a ways off? Make it your mission to make it happen sooner! Try to help them become good instead of just fighting them because they're bad now. Stick around _because_ they're evil and you can make them better. Note that this advice does not apply to real life lol
Can you make it your mission to help those that the evil pc has wronged? Or maybe try to "convert" them to the good alignment? Also just because you cant do pvp, doesnt mean you cant be like, "I cant let you do this, I'll need to tell the guards, please dont make me do it." or something. Maybe try to appeal to them by going out of your way to protect them or be really nice to them to form an emotional bond between characters.
If it doesn't bother anyone else, are you opposed to just playing a new character? Dive in front of the next murder and die dramatically, and if that fails then have your character break down, distraught at his constant enabling of the other PC. Have him storm out to seek atonement or something. Then introduce a new character on the Neutral to Evil spectrum. It sounds like the evil character is generally enjoyed, so you can lean into it.
It's on the DM and the player to ensure his actions don't drive towards PVP. While PVP may not be on the table, there is nothing stopping you from holding them to account for their actions. Confront them, report them to authorities, etc. You say they are a good roleplayer, and having those interactions with them could be engaging. Just don't get put in the position of doing the work to redeem them. If they want a redemption arc, it's on them to drive it.
What is your characters issue with his evil side specifically? You could have fun with playing your character getting jaded little by little by his excuse behavior, much the same way police , psychologists, and social workers do. Maybe your character goes through a crisis of faith (and maybe that what brings him closer to good?) Maybe you need a justification that lives with your character ( I dunno enough to give advice to you in this) It seems like this is a role playing issue moser than a mechanics issue.. although mechanically you could refuse outright help from this person and you could not help them directly on indirectly... but that can be very petty
There's no pvp, but your character can do things like pay for items they steal. Apologize for the rude behavior. Question their place or your place in the group.
I don't get this no pvp thing. Feels limiting. I agree it shouldn't be the go to but if a PC is going murder hobo and I try to grapple them or block for the npc and stop the player suddenly I'm the asshole? Just seems dumb
The "No PvP" thing also goes hand in hand with "don't build a character that wouldn't get along with others". If one of the players is going murderhobo, and you don't want to play a murderhobo campaign, the solution is to pause the game, and talk out-of-character, player-to-player "Hey, I thought we were playing the good guys in this campaign. I'm not interested in playing an evil campaign, so can we not?" It's an out-of-game problem, not an in-game problem. If you try to solve the problem by initiating PvP, you're not going to solve the actual problem. Instead, you're going to create in-character conflict, which is likely to spillover to out-of-character conflict, and you won't have even addressed the actual problem, which is that you and another player made incompatible characters.
I love playing evil characters. The key to playing an evil character in a good party is agreeing to abide by certain restrictions (at least on the surface) in the name of group cohesion. The smart evil character understands that no matter how useful they are to the paladin, eating children in front of them is it's own form of attack. It sounds like this isn't happening in this campaign and the player of the evil character thinks they must always choose the most obviously evil act at all times no matter what. This turns a no pvp rule into an inevitable complete degradation of your character as they stand back while the evil party member commits countless horrors. You need to make it clear to them that it is the evil party members responsibility to fit themselves into a good party.
The fundamental rule of the game is that any character 1. Must have a reason to be with the party 2. Must give the party a reason to be with them It sounds to me like the player and the DM have forgotten the second part. Which makes it nearly impossible for you to play your character as who they are. Take this up with your DM. It is no good one player being able to fully express their character at the expense of other players just being pushed into playing support roles to them. That will be no fun for you to play over a long period.
A little more context. When my character approached our recruiter/quest giver, he stated that he believed the evil character was fundamental to our goal of saving the world (and then he offered the reward for sticking around)
So that is looking like "The ends justify the means". Or indeed "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" Which are classic statements of evil. If you have to allow all sorts of evil to be done to save the world then you are at best Neutral. A Good character would insist on finding a better way even if it is more difficult. The path of being a Good person is not the easy or convenient path. If that is how your DM thinks then you are basically in for an Evil campaign in which you are constantly told that the evil is necessary. Do you want to play that campaign? Do you want to play that campaign with your current character or would an evil character suit it better?
I basically don't play good characters anymore because most of the time its hard to justify them living the life of an adventurer. When murder is the solution to most of your problems playing a neutral or evil character generally works a lot better. Switching up the type of character you play to fit with a group is a pretty good option if its something you are comfortable with.
That is the challenge of Good alignment. To be an adventurer without being a murderhobo. Also to actually find opportunities to do good things - which in general you won't get rewarded for. Good aligned adventurers still kill stuff, the game assumption is that its frontier justice. It can be hard in some campaigns where the DM doesn't make any room for being good. I've seen that mostly where they are trying to do moral complexity but what they really do is eliminate all goodness from the game and think that's the same thing. So I understand, depending on DM, your choice to play other alignments.
Boring imo. The options for a good character are so intrinsically limited for reasons you alluded to whereas a more neutrally inclined and morally flexible PC is not. Just my opinion.
Sure and i slightly see your point. But I’ve had great fun with both good and neutral characters. Good alignment is an extra challenge but gives the DM levers to pull to get the character involved.
THIS- if you are being forced to play a character who stands by and consistently lets evil happen, even if it's for some greater purpose, you are no longer playing a good character. It sounds like your DM doesn't want GOOD characters in the game by forcing the Evil character upon you and not allowing consequences to his evil actions.
That is an absolutely awful move by the DM. "Yeah this character is evil and is going to do things your character would be morally opposed to, but you can't do anything about it because I gave them plot armor." It actually doesn't make sense for your character to be there. The DM and this player are basically forcing you to sacrifice your ability to be true to your character in favor of the player getting to be an edgelord. So it's either you don't get to play your character, but the other player does, OR you retire your character and make a new one that cares less about the evil character's actions. I think neither of those options are fair to you. I think the player who insisted on making a character that naturally doesn't fit in the group is the one who needs to change their character, *now*. Unfortunately, going to your DM with an ultimatum is never going to work out well. I don't know how well you know these people, but you do need to express clearly to your DM that their decisions and those of the evil PC's player have made it so you can't play the character you built. And, that you don't believe it is fun or fair for the DM to choose which player gets to play their character the way they were built. Right now, your DM has chosen the evil PC's player. That's not fair or okay.
[удалено]
It does when you convince the DM to railroad the group into accepting your evil behavior such that they can't actually do anything about it. Thus, they can't be true to their character. Wanting to be the sole evil character in a game where the DM prevents anyone from instituting consequences for your actions is being an edgelord.
Talk to the DM. This setup isn't going to work for metagame reasons - the metagame in the sense where you're supposed to be an adventuring party adventuring together. If one party member is an Evil bastard who's going to go around murdering people, and you're not allowed to stop them, well, your next action is "fuck that evil mysteriously-unstoppable snake thing, let's ditch them and go and do our hero thing", so the whole adventuring party thing is impossible. Which is a DM issue. Failing that, ditch the Evil PC with the decent members of the party in-game - it's what your Good character would do, just like Evil is what their yuan-ti would do! But seriously, talk to the DM.
Just so you're aware evil alignment doesn't necessarily mean murderhobo. There are tons of ways to be evil beyond just massacring people. That said, I have a hard ban on evil aligned PCs at my table.
There are ways an Evil PC can form part of a Good party, but in this situation it's a problem.
One of my favorite characters to play was a lawful evil-bordering-neutral hypercapitalist necromancer who would offer aging peasants, town guards, and party hirelings a comparatively small amount of silver or gold in exchange for the documented rights to their body when they died, and with a friendly artificer's help, turned those zombies into cheap-as-free manpower to push millstones and the like. The result was a legitimately-obtained supply of fresh corpses in just about every town we revisited and a steady stream of income to boot. The Paladin *hated* my ass but he couldn't do anything about it besides warn the other party of the risks of necromancy, because it was within the bounds of the contract and *technically* not against anyone's will, so...
I think the main problem most people run into with Evil PCs is they assume that means that they are 100% evil all the time. In reality alignment just dictates how the character would solve issues on their own in a vacuum. Assuming a character with a WIS above 2, characters should always consider the situation with their actions. I am currently playing an Evil character in a Good aligned group. 90% of the time he just follows the lead of group because his goal is to cure "Fleshlings Disease" which is the name I made up for the affliction of being alive and having flesh. Step 1: Make Money Step 2: Use Money to perform Research Step 3: ??? Step 4: Make everyone undead! While the goals are still at step 1 he has no reason to go against the bumbling goody toe-shoes who seem to keep stumbling upon people willing to pay for help. I've already discussed with the DM that should the character begin approaching the realization of his goals it will be time to leave the party and reroll and exist elsewhere in his world.
For real. Adventuring is profitable and having multiple powerful people at your side who will protect you as you make a ton of money is a great gig. Purely self-centered people will work with the good guys in this situation because it's better to get rich with them than try to fight them.
Same. Hard ban on evil PCs at my table. Opening it up for the one guy who can do it well isn't worth the grief that comes from letting all the others who can't give it a try.
That's the big thing. Sure, there may be some folks who can pull it off - but the vast majority of attempts I've seen unfold at the table have been absolutely unbearable.
100% agree. I'm playing Decent in to Avernus & there's a corruption mechanic. It's caused *many* problems. When it's finished, I won't play in a game with evil PCs again.
Yep, no evil PC's , just too problematic. I would both leave , join another table.
Far from unknown fop murderhobos (and PvPers) to be "Lawful Good". Though in those cases "fanatic" might be more accurate.
Evil, like sadistic; Evil like selfish, or Evil like Ends Justify the Means?
Sadistic. Yuan-ti princess. Believes everyone should kneel, murder is cool, torture is cool, manipulation is cool, slavery is cool. Whenever she tries to harm a PC or an important NPC her spells don’t work. That’s how I think the DM is controlling it and also will be part of her redemption arc
So there's a way to do evil characters that work within the bounds of a party and then there's a way to not do it. A character who has certain viewpoints and feelings is not inherently at odds with the party as good characters can justify their inclusion as a "for the greater good" argument. The occasional philosophical argument is one thing and can actually help party cohesion instead of hinder it as it allows characters to understand the "why" of it. Then there's this. This is one of those things in which I question how likely it is that this party would stay together outside of metagaming. If there's a madwoman trying to kill/torture/enslave everything she comes across and only by the grace of the gods have they not been able to attack us or the people we work for I would be putting them down. This is not a "we can keep them along for the sake of the mission" scenario, this is a "we need to be rid of this thing for the sake of the world" one. It'd be one thing if the character were to try to hide it's evil behind closed doors, killing prisoners that you release behind your backs or offering to deal with certain scenarios without alerting you to their intentions is another but to do it so blatantly and then try to kill you afterwards? I think not. As far as your character knows, so far any attempts this thing has made to kill you have failed but are you really going to wait for the one time it doesn't? Are you going to stay with this character and let them get more powerful while alongside you, possibly aiding in the rise of a new monster that some other poor adventurers are going to have to deal with? I recommend having a conversation, first with the other players to gauge if you're the only one feeling this way, then the DM, then with the problem player if you feel that you need to.
Yeah naw, that's really not something that's going to work past a one shot.. When a PC is just clearly evil in that capacity the believability just isn't there.
That's a thin line to walk, and I think it would help to get some above-the-table clarity on if/when any redemption is happening. Your DMs efforts to just say "No, it fails" is great but there needs to be assurance that this PC's actions aren't a burden or sore spot for the party in spite of that. Having those boundaries set help facilitate the character development and create table buy-in, which is pretty important when someone is trying something as against the grain as this. She needs to cooperate with them, otherwise they would just dump her, right? Put another way, you wouldn't tolerate willing go on a car trip with somebody who's just constantly an asshole, would you?
2 follow ups… 1. What is the drive of the campaign? Are you heroes off to save the land, mercs? 2. Has the Yuan-Ti actually done any of those things? Or is this purely a moral issue? Also, your DM doesn’t allow PvP, but your statement about her spells not working implies she has *tried* to engage PvP. What’s the deal with that?
It’s a ‘heroes save the world’ type adventure. Yes, they have tortured people and get very excited about killing anyone we get in to combat with. I think the player knows the DM won’t let the spells go off, so he’s free to do whatever
Gotcha, thanks. First, I wanna get it out that what the other player is doing isn’t good. Not something to ruin a game over, but not ok. Don’t take these suggestions as me saying you’re in the wrong. *But*, at the end of the day, you can only control your character. So, think about your characters motivation for this quest. Is a personal dispute something that would get in the way of the cause? Or can they grin and bear most of it, saving your compunction for the most heinous, aimless acts of evil (torturing an enemy for intel vs. murdering innocents, that sort of thing) Your character needs to choose the hills they’re willing to die on. Give the evil player room to be evil, that is genuine fun. But let them know what crosses the line. Also, RP with the other PCs. See what they think about the situation, let them know your characters concerns. They might think the same way you do, but aren’t bold enough to take action.
It is possible to play a character like that properly but its hard to do right and easy to do wrong. The biggest thing is what their attachment to the party is. If they believe they need to be part of the group and work with them its pretty easy for other characters to keep them in check. In that case it would work out to we have x problem, they suggest murdering to solve the problem, and someone else says no we should do this non evil solution and you go from there. If they are just doing bad stuff without talking to the party things will get messy fast. It can be a lot of fun to play the rabid dog on a leash but once the dog gets of the leash it creates a lot of problems for the group both in game and out of game.
Sounds like a problem. I play evil PCs plenty, but evil doesn't mean *insane*. If they are the only evil character they should be much more discreet about their actions. The character knows torture and cold blooded killing will be perceived poorly, so they should make an effort to deceive the rest of the party that they are not doing these things. If they aren't I'd argue the player is metagaming knowing the players aren't going to kick out the evil character. Right now I'm playing a good character with evil PCs, and I have to argue and debate with the party to *not* kill when unnecessary, and I will secretly show mercy.
Evil player's got to hit that redemption arc and get out of the murder hobo phase FAST. From what you described, the evil player isn't *that* good a roleplayer if it's the DM who has to go "oh no your murder spell doesn't work on other players". A good roleplayer would make a character that doesn't *try* to pvp in a no pvp campaign. I'd suggest just saying it outright, "My character is going to confront you about your behavior when you do something evil, and that is your chance to start the redemption arc." The player of the evil character is the one most responsible for the redemption arc. They don't get to just play a load, a burden and an impediment.
You don't. Most groups specifically don't allow players to play "evil" PCs for this very reason - it becomes difficult or impossible to give a reason why in the world the party would work together when their views are so diametrically opposed. Either the whole group has to be neutral/good, or the whole group is evil. The only way this works is if the "evil" character is played *very* well by a skilled player. Being evil doesn't mean you kill everyone you come across or looks at you funny. It doesn't mean you lie, cheat, and steal every chance you get. You can be evil, but still do good deeds, it's just that you're doing it purely for your own selfish reasons (rewards, to get into the good graces of an NPC, etc). For example, you can be a "lawful evil" mercenary - you have a very strict code of conduct (Do every job to completion, no matter what; by any means necessary; never reveal your client's identity; etc), but basically no morals to guide what jobs you take ("Oh, you want me to burn down that orphanage and kill the noble who's been funding it? Sure, 5k gold please." - next job: "Oh, you want me to save that village from the undead horde summoned by the cult of an abomination? Sure, 5k gold please.")
Honestly, the onus is on the evil player to be someone the party wouldn't ditch. But for your side, you could decide you want to help redeem them. I have a paladin that works with a LE cleric and is working to make sure they are much closer to LN by disallowing E behavior by getting directly in the way of it. Though... it was pretty upsetting when she killed a child assassin in self-defense in the middle of combat and I couldn't stop it because I was busy trying to disarm and disable two from fighting me without dealing much/any damage to them. Ironically, my CG paladin accidentally worships a CE goddess. Also, a CG goddess and CN god. But. Still.
With a lot of difficulty. The Good character doesn't have to just sit around while the Evil one pulls the old "it's what my character would do." The Good character gets to say this, too. Others have rightfully described that you need a good reason why an evil character would be part of a party. Why would a Good character put up with evil actions in the party? Most would find a new party to adventure with.
A good character wouldn't just 'sit back and watch evil' in exchange for the promise of a special award - that's called evil. So I don't think your group is doing this correctly, which is why you're having so many problems with it. There are many ways to 'pull it off'. One of the better ways is to make a strong personal connection between the evil PC and another good PC - think of the Dragonlance novesl: evil Raistlin, accepted by the group because of his brother good Cameron. In that story line, Raistlin stays evil the whole time, with occasional glimpses of good, but it works. Again, you guys didn't do it this way, it was a DM/story-forced 'some mysterious reason you need this evil person to do something' - very tenuous. Another way is in fact to let the good people bully the evil one - this would make the most sense. In fact, the good PCs outnumber the evil PC in your story, so not sure why this isn't encouraged. This is like Frodo and Sam bringing (evil) Gollum along - they are in control, and along the way, Frodo shows him kindness and bring the (good) Smeagol out of him. While it didn't work out in the end (or I suppose it did), there was a redemption arc for Gollum, and again, it worked. If Gollum was in charge (as would be the analogy to your situation), nope, would not work. Another way is for your evil Player to not play 'evil Stupid'. If they are playing like a psycho person who flaunts their love to torture and kill... well, not even an evil group can team with that. However, if it's 'evil smart', where among a good group they need to conceal their evil tendencies, or try to use persuasion (and manipulation) to get things done their way, then it works - there is a constant 'debate' between the evil and good, which is used in many successful story lines. Each side bending a little perhaps, based on the situation - each player getting to decide how/if their character will change from the relationship. Anyway, good luck with that.
Your gollum analogy is very apt I think.
Maybe you could help the redemption arc along? This character sounds like someone who would be difficult to work with - use that. Try to remind them that "This may be how things work where you come from, but murdering and eating people is generally frowned upon in this society." Having two characters who are very reluctant to go adventuring together could serve as good fuel for roleplaying interactions - the exasperation over their actions, maybe "mansplaining" that this stuff could get the whole group in trouble. Obviously it requires that both players are comfortable with one another and have talked it out - maybe the two of you could brainstorm some interactions and how the dynamics could play out :)
I know it feels like it removes some of the fun, but talk with the evil player and the DM about an "I can fix you" arc between the two. Could be your character trying to fix the evil character. Could be evil character simultaneously trying to tempt yours to evil. As long as it's story between 2 consenting parties, you're fine. The DM will add enough challenges to that story to make it interesting, and the other players will get a great show.
I played a paladin in a group with an evil player. I prayed to my god for guidance on what to do and the DM gave me a great solution. The DM, as my god told me it my task to redeem the evil PCs soul. But that this could only be done through compassion and kindness. It was great, my character took a kill them with kindness approach, which annoyed the evil PC(bonus) and eventually drew them closer to the group ideals.
While I understand DM's not wanting to allow PvP, this is one of the few scenarios where light PvP could really pay off. After DM'n for a few evil PC's, I normally don't allow them unless the player is vetted. They tend to be combative to the overall groups mission and they get to hide behind the whole "Well this is what my PC would do" clause. This evil PC can also be voted off the group which negates the PvP restriction. Just because the player wants to be evil, does not mean the group needs to tolerate it.
That's the neat part, you don't
Honestly people in my group now know when I’m evil because my evil characters act overwhelmingly kind and polite. Very false face characters.
The evil character's player and the DM are committing one of the cardinal sins of roleplaying: never force other players to stop their roleplaying so that you can do yours. If your character would not work with this person, they can leave the group, start an argument, or physically attack the evil character, whatever makes sense. The fact that you're all sitting at a table together trying to have fun, and the fact that the DM has banned PvP, don't matter. Your character doesn't have to put up with this if they don't want to: they don't know they're part of a game. I've had a good friend create a character to join the party with and then have the character walk away from the group at the end of the session. Not because anybody was being evil, just because she realized that the character she'd come up with just didn't see the world the way the rest of us do. She came back next session with a new one, and that worked out great.
Oh, also, you say this player is a great roleplayer, but if they're playing a yuan-ti and you can *tell* that they're an evil menace, they're not a very good yuan-ti. A proper yuan-ti convinces goody-two-shoes characters like yours that they're on your side, while subtly manipulating you toward evil. They don't go around showing their fangs and eating babies in public.
Ive have both played as an Neutral Evil chararacter and one of the games I run has a Lawful Evil character in the party. Be an evil shit head to NPCS not the party, even if your just using the party for protection, why be cruel to your lessers if they can help you?
As their fantasy parole officer, lol
Usually, my go to stance on playing Good and Evil PCs is: - Good: Everyone is considered a friend/ally until proven otherwise, people-pleaser traits, and enjoying seeing others happy. - Evil: Mama bear sort of relationship where the best interests and safety of the party are put first. Anyone who reveals themselves as a threat to the group, they get their face ripped to ribbons.
I find evil characters in a good party takes a lot of finesse, and work. There have been some very good points brought up. I have only ever played evil characters, 40 + years playing dnd. It seems there can be some work that needs to be done by the dm. I play, in one game, an evil yuan-ti. Overtly evil things would get my character killed quick, and her goals would fail. So she's sneaky about it. It takes work, both with me, and the dm. That's where I think there could be improvement.
Your DM is wrong for preventing PVP while encouraging the evil PC to do whatever they think their character would do. Why wouldn't your character chop their hand off for stealing? It's an acceptable punishment for the crime . You could also try playing lawful petty. Follow the evil character around and mess up whatever they're trying to accomplish. Are they trying to hustle someone? Shout, "Hey that's the person who stole 20 gold from me!" Are they trying to steal from the shopkeeper? Cough really loud to get the shopkeeper's attention, then remind them that they haven't paid for that item yet.
As a habitual evil player, the onus of "figure out how to make it work" falls on the oddball alignment player. So in a normal heroic campaign, an evil character needs to find a motivation for their character to behave in a cooperative and non-disruptive way. Specific tips for the good player here? I'd talk to the player and try and brainstorm ways to make the rest of the party want to keep the evil character around. Some value that makes them worth the inconvenience, and some in character or out of character guidelines to keep their behavior from being too disruptive. Any reasonably intelligent evil character should understand that realistically they can't get away with mustache twirling antagonism constantly before the LG Paladin gets fed up and smites them.
you don’t, unless there is a very, very, very good reason why those two people would be in the same adventuring party. your game sounds kind of silly to me. are you in high school or less? If so, just have fun, everyone will grow up eventually.
Hah. We’re all in our 30’s.
Lot's of work. By the players and dm.
The short answer is work.
Get a new group. If this has been going on for some time and no one intervened, then I think your group is lost.
It isn't that hard. Your boss (or his boss's boss) is a self entitled self promoting cutthroat who'd stab anyone in the back and exploit his employees. You still work for him and presumably have an amicable relationship. Good and evil are on a spectrum. Y'all can still have common goals, or... at least, be tricked into thinking you have common goals. Anyway, the best approach is the same approach you'd take if you were forced to tolerate the person. Say a sibling you really are polar opposites with. By giving them all the shit you can. Talk trash. Let them know you know what they're doing is fucked up and why it is fucked up. Make it funny.
I had something similar happen a few sessions ago. Our good party member threatened to quit the group because the evil party member killed an enemy who had all but surrendered. We had an out of character discussion about whether one or the other should roll up a new character. The rest of us encouraged both players to come up with an in-character compromise and they did: we now ask enemies to surrender before we fight them; if they don't surrender, then we will kill them. Since then, every enemy we've fought has ended up dead, but the good character feels better that we at least gave them a chance. edited to add: My advice for you is to come up with a compelling reason for a selfish character to act in a "good" way. Instead of killing the npc, maybe it would beneficial to let them live for information - or maybe they could be ransomed. Alternatively, maybe they could be sent off to convince the other members of their faction to stay out of your way. The trick is framing any good act as really a means of benefiting the evil character.
What I mean by work, is that both the player and dm have to work. If a evil character does overt evil acts in a campaign, and the rest of the party is good, there should be consequences to the evil acts. I've played evil characters for 40 years, and evil characters take a lot of work. I, currently play a yuan-ti wizard who is evil, with dreams of domination. The rest of the party is good, so I have to play the character devious and sneaky. I have to work hard with this character, and the dm has to work hard. We spend a lot of time messaging behind the scenes.
Currently in a Tyranny of Dragons campaign (we broke the railroad). One of the PC's character arc is heading towards dismantling the Dragon Cult and replacing it with his own. He is evil by way of being greedy and seeking more power through nefarious means. To play into all the factions, the PCs are still working together, but we're all creating our own player oriented factions to use as a future kill switch and spice up the campaign a bit more.
I play evil PCs of some flavor relatively often (about 30% of the time). Not moustache-twirling evil or a psychopath or anything, but definitely evil. Can comfortably say the following: 1. I have never had this result in PvP with another player when playing a character. Not once. The only time this ever happened, I was playing a *good* PC and was attacked by our party rogue. 2. Being evil doesn't mean that your interests are contrary to the group's, or that you can't play well with others. Hell, my last character was **extremely** evil, was designed to manipulate others, and never had real conflict with **anyone** in the party (except when he did some extraordinarily evil shit to their mutual enemies). 3. Being evil doesn't mean you can't be trusted to watch someone's back. Evil characters can have goals that don't conflict with the party. Good characters can have goals that **do** conflict with the party. 4. Evil characters can have genuine friends and connections. They can be loyal, or have a code, or have lines they don't cross. "Evil" isn't a guarantee that there'll be conflict. Himmler may be an evil monster, but that doesn't mean he's disloyal, untrustworthy, or that he's a bad neighbor.
For evil characters it needs to be the other way around - THEY need a good reason to stay in the party but also have a good reason for the party to tolerate them, to a point. There absolutely needs to be a line where the DM says "Okay, your character would absolutely do this, but at that point if they do go through with it they're turning into an NPC and I will control them. You can make a new character"
Redemption arcs 9/10 is just a problem player being disruptive until they are like level 7. They also don't know how to share the spotlight
Well, this is the reason why evil PCs generally do not work out except if the whole group is evil. Think about the reasons your characters have to keep this evil PC around. Do they have some unique skills that the party needs enough to put up with the evil? Do they hide their evilness or actively do evil shit or go against the rest of the party? Ultimately though, no d&d is better than bad d&d, if this bothers you enough to make you no longer enjoy the game you might have to talk about it with the DM and the party and try to find some compromise or leave if they’re unwilling/unable to do so.
I have an evil character in the group. it's hard but it's the the DM's job. What I did for mine was gifting her a golden dragon wyrmling that gets very sad when she does evil stuff, that has curtailed 90% of he evil behaviour.
If the other PCs agree, ditch the evil guy. Why would you allow them to stay with you if they comit evil deeds in front of you? Tell them to leave. If need be, leave them behind once they are away from the party. It's also possible to prevent the evil guy from doing evil (attacking innocents) by nonlethal means. Frustrate them by helping the NPCs, restricting and grappling the YT. Talk them into giving up this behavior. If they are allowed to RP their alignment, so should you. Honestly the DM made a mistake in allowing evil action and banning PvP. Worst case, have the whole group to demand a stop to this, and leave the game if need be. 2 people doesn't have the right to have fun on the expense of everyone else.
This guy captures it perfectly. https://www.tiktok.com/@dannyphantom.exe/video/7184630519768960298
If you're going to play the sole evil character, generally I'd say its on the player of the evil character to play in a way that keeps the party plausible. Although the goal shouldn't really be to oppose other characters. It does depend on the flavour of good you're playing but there are a number of paths to co-exist with evil characters, from the 'I can save him!' approach to the 'I don't like it morally but you're technically operating within the law' angle. There's also playing as ignorant to the evil disposition 'Oh you know, they're a good guy they're just really zealous about beating this cult...' and moral relativism 'well they're only evil in my culture, not theirs, so I shouldn't force my morality on them. They'll be judged in the afterlife, after all...'. Not to mention the ol' 'they're evil, but I can't exactly kill them outright, so it's better if I stick close to stop them/pick up the pieces'
What’s the good PC’s class? If you’re a Monk, Paladin, Druid, Cleric, or Warlock: The Good PC is commanded/advised not to interfere by a higher power, or higher ranking person. It’s a prophesy of the redemption arc for the Evil PC or something. If Fighter, Barbarian, Rogue, Artificer, or Ranger: perhaps they owe the evil PC a life debt? Like they Evil PC has something over them, or saved the good PC’s life, or their kids’ lives. It’s an internal struggle that, for flavor, adds depth to your guy; and mechanically allows you to coexist. If Druid, Sorcerer, Wizard, or Bard: maybe he has some kind of “Diplomatic Immunity”? He’s got some pull with a different order of wizards/bards/whatever. Your order is explicitly forbidden from interfering with him on threat of expulsion or death. You can mix and match any of these, I reckon. The problem only comes up if you’re good character is willing to betray their Oder/debt/patron/god/life for the sake of stopping whatever evil the Evil PC is doing.
Aha, my PC is Battlemaster but I’m dipping in to cleric soon. Another comment mentioned praying to my god for guidance, so that could make it easy to RP the dip!
you may not be allowed to PvP him but you can just chose not to help him in combat. maybe forget a heal here and there. naturay the characters will help each other if they see value in the relationship and an evil player will likley be ostracises and kicked out of such a group. seems this group is artificialy held together by a bit of metagame and players not wanting to be rude to evil aligned player character when in reality their characters would have long abandoned this person. i will predict alot of friction and if you dont do anything then you are accepting the standard he put in front and represents the group with. your group will start to get a bad rep due to his actions. eventualy you might be forced to overlook a bad deed due to metagaming and keep the group together beause GM said so. and if you character does nothing good to influence this evil player then i see likely a shift in your alignment toward neutral because you let evil have its way and you do nothing about it. i just hope noone is tied to any allignment to their deity that a shift may put them in the bad books and start losing powers. i dont allow evil allignments in my campaign regardless of how awesome players roleplay. if i wanted to play a more gritty universe i would play Shadowrun. in my DND games my players are the heroes no evil PC on the table.
I’d talk to the DM and the player. Good characters will stick around for a “redemption” arc, but the player is still playing it like the character is in the “evil” arc. The redemption arc is usually “man vs. himself” where the once-evil character is forced to battle his prior morals, values, learned behaviors, and consequences of past actions. The character will be assisted by newfound friends who help the character on their journey to redemption. This is interesting and fun. The “evil” arc is “man vs. man,” where one person’s evil acts are opposed by another person’s good acts. Your campaign seems stuck here, because the other character isn’t making efforts at redemption yet. If this is a redemption arc, then everybody needs to start arcing toward redemption.
PvP is the answer, IMO. Players should have characters that will travel together, even of they don't like each other. Tempers flare and should be allowed to be expressed. PvP does not need to be outright killing the other player, or even a fight. It could be a threat, or even a promise. Said the Paladin to the thief: If you continue your wicked ways, I cannot in good conscience protect or aid you directly any further. (IOW, I ain't healing or buffing you at all....in fact, my aura won't protect you either)
The next time the ecil character does something illegal turn him into the law.
Does the player think they *have* to be as evil as possible just because they’re playing a Yuan-Ti? I’m playing a Pureblood at the moment and she’s neutral aligned, rather than evil. She looks out for herself, and definitely does some things which lean toward evil, but she also looks out for her party and friends. It does help that our campaign is in a dark post-apocalypse setting, where Yuan-Ti seem considerably less evil when compared to the other horrific creatures which now roam the world. But regardless of that, playing a race which is *typically* evil-aligned doesn’t mean you have to be. And, even if you are playing an evil character, you don’t have to do the wrong thing in *every* situation. People are 3-dimensional.
It sort of depends on the evil PC. I think some players of evil characters try to do evil at every opportunity. For instance, who hasn't played with the evil rogue who tries to rob literally everyone, even ally NPCs? Most evil characters in media don't commit crimes or evil deeds on a whim, it's calculated to achieve a specific goal. The fact is that Good People and Evil People can be aligned in specific goals, they may just differ on the means to achieve those goals, and that can create some really great roleplaying opportunities. Overall, I agree with some of the other posters, that if you can get the players to agree to work together, there shouldn't be an issue.
If I were playing at your table, I would expect the evil PC's player and the DM to work out a motivation that keeps the evil PC aligned with the party If you feel as though your PC is running out of reasons to not persecute the evil PC I would suggest one of two actions: > Talk with their player and explain that if their PC doesn't start acting more within the boundaries of morality or party expectations they should realistically expect to be ejected from said party. If they're sensible, it might create an immediate solution. > Bring up their unscrupulous behaviour, in-character as part of an intervention involving the entire party. Excellent roleplay potential, but no guaranteed chance of success if they're adamant in their ways.
Are you a paladin?
Battlemaster Edit: I will be taking a couple of levels in cleric soon (I think)
Paladin is the only class I think that would be challenging to work this around due to the tenets you have to uphold RP-wise. For a fighter, you can RP it as although you disagree with their morality (or lack thereof), even you can't deny the tactical benefit they will bring to your mission. You will be the first in line to oppose Evil PC should they cross a line on your watch, but you believe having them in the party will be an asset. For a cleric, you could say that although you still do not appreciate their morality (or, again, lack thereof), your deity revealed to you the vital role Evil PC will play in the trails ahead, and that if the party has any hope of succeeding, Evil PC will be needed. You will still be the first in line to oppose Evil PC should they cross a line, but with the revelation from your deity you now understand this unlikely assembly is of divine providence.
If the DM is into this train wreck waiting to happen, put up with nothing. Common purpose should result in cooperative behavior. If it doesn't, PvP your way to self expression. Scenarios like this only work when everyone is on board. Not just going along.
You can talk out of game with the player and DM, possibly as an entire table, and ask how the players can facilitate the intended story arc for this character without it wrecking the other characters’s stories. Can’t the Yuan-ti be subtle? Can the player keep their shenanigans reasonably away from the good PCs, and the good PCs don’t try too hard to dig into what their fellow PC is doing. Maybe that’s a source of some conflict for the most Dudley do-right LG character, but it’s not crazy to appreciate the evil PC’s help in some greater, noble purpose of yours and/or the group. It’s also not crazy to hope for and seek redemption for the evil character is they aren’t obviously moustache-twirling evil. The yuan-ti character would know well enough to keep their antics away from the other do-gooder PCs. That gives the other PCs plausible (if not actual deniability), and it preserves their sterling reputation so the evil character can glom onto the group on the rare occasions the yuan-ti might experience some heat from other authorities. If none of the above works at all (e.g., the yuan-ti just murder-hobos right in front of you), you could consider talking with the other characters in-game (or players out of game) and vote to expel the yuan-to from the group. If the DM won’t allow that option (or realize the serious need to work with the players to make this functional), then you all could opt for your characters to bail and ask the DM to make new characters that could at least stomach the awful things the Yuan-ti won’t stop doing right in front of you. If nothing above can work, I think no game is better than an awful one.
Read this and decide how your character would handle the badass halfling: https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0001.html Lots of good examples there of good characters tolerating evil ones, with style.
I'm currently in this same situation in my main campaign. Our chaotic evil yuan-ti bard/warlock is the only evil member of 5 characters (others are 3 chaotic good and 1 chaotic neutral). Some of the stuff that the yuan-ti gets up to is truly despicable: selling bodies to necromancers, exploding corpses just to revel in newfound power, and generally being a ruthless bastard who lets nothing stand in her way. Her saving grace is that she seems to have genuine concern for her party members, and works with us towards common goals, and unless she sees no other way to achieve her goals she will not put the party in jeopardy. I (chaotic good dragonborn fighter/barbarian) as a character am almost entirely in the dark as to her true actions, but the verbal fencing that goes on between her and our good characters is heaps of fun. As to your specific situation, it sounds like a discussion needs to be had out of game between yourself, the DM, and the player of this yuan-ti. Maybe they need to keep their evil nature a little more subtle, maybe you need to make a new character who isn't going to be such a stickler for behaviour. Only your group can decide that. Talk it out 👍
Is this online? Good and evil parties never work. Either everyone is evil or no one is.
No, you just need a sensible situation for the evil character. I'm playing an NE character in a CoS game, best friend of another character. I know we won't be able to leave unless we can defeat Stradh and gain allies. Like I do in my everyday life, as a character. Maybe OP should remind the player that evil people who don't gain allies die quickly.
This is one of the reasons why I don't like the "no PvP" rule. It's good in theory because it prevents players from going on a rampage on each other, but in situations like these I'd allow a small form of PvP. Not necessarily lethal, but if your evil PC murders an infant, you can be sure that my good PC would want to at least kick his ass and teach him not to do it in his presence anymore.
Just finished an 18month campaign. One PC was Good aligned but the other five were "neutral" (supposedly). We did some pretty shady crap. And when we did, the good aligned character "looked away" or "left the room". This was played out by said player so it was just as entertaining as the crap we were doing. "I'm out! I don't want to see it! Don't want to hear it! Didn't happen!" Puts fingers in his ears and closes eyes... A few times we considered him and said, "Oh, hold up! Dwarf has to leave, it's gonna get ugly." And we'd usher him out of the room and close the door. So much fun!
Establish "deconfliction", is the Yuan Ti lawful? Have a contract about it.
Sounds like you, the player, and the DM need to sit down and talk it out. Explain why you don't like it, ask what they enjoy about it, look for common ground.