I've written a bit at this point about evil PCs from the player perspective, but it seems fitting I touch on how to handle them from a DM's perspective. For this specific discussion, I'm going to reference terminology from a previous blog post of mine: "How to Be Evil (Without Ruining Game Night)," so give that a read if you haven't already. The big one is knowing the difference between a character that's "evil" (as in, by D&D standards, evil aligned) and one that's "potentially antagonistic" (willing and likely to be not so nice to other PCs for all matter of reasons).
The first thing that a DM should do is explicitly tell their players before character creation really starts whether or not evil and/or potentially antagonistic characters are okay for the campaign. It could be about experience (many newer DMs will rightfully be against having characters with interparty conflicts built into their existence) or campaign relevance (maybe a campaign about saving kidnapped children and puppies should avoid child and puppy hating villains as protagonists). Whatever the reason, having the DM come to players about the subject instead of the other way around means fewer questions asked, and, if someone wanted to hide their desire to play an evil or potentially antagonistic character, this makes it much easier to do so.
In general, have players interested in playing some not so nice guys talk to you privately (assuming you don't already have everyone do this), allowing for details to be hashed out properly; evil characters tend to need some work justifying their existence that good or even neutral characters usually do not. How the situation is handled though will depend on what your player wants: an evil character, a potentially antagonistic character, or a simultaneously evil and potentially antagonistic character.
To start, what to do if a player wants to play just an evil character with no real intentions of causing major problems for anyone. This option is the easiest to work with. All you and your player need to work out is why said evil individual would be willing to be friends with a handful of less morally dubious individuals, assuming "friends" is the goal. Maybe their character will be a devil bound via contract to another player to serve them, a criminal blackmailed by the party, or maybe being evil doesn't deprive them of the ability to enjoy the company of others. As long as DM and player can agree on an answer to the very simple question of "if bad, then why friends good," everything will be fine.
In the middle for difficulty is, weirdly enough, when a player decides they want to be both evil and a menace. In other words, they're interested in playing a minor villain for the campaign. At least, they'll probably be minor. That's part of what needs to be discussed with the player. The DM for a character like this should work with the player to decide how big of a part this player wants to play in the threats the party faces, how to handle hiding their nature from everyone else (both in character and above table), and what their plans are for a backup character when this one gets killed or chased off by the party. In theory, DM and player may settle on this character being the final big bad of the campaign, in which case, the second topic matters more and the third not at all. Regardless of the path chosen, it may also be wise to make this player's character higher level than everyone else, something they'll also have to hide.
As the DM in-game, you'll also need to help this player hide their evil and antagonistic nature from everyone else. This could include being deliberately vague on the source of certain abilities and numbers that might be different due to being higher level, allowing for machinations to happen away from the table, and anything else that prevents everyone else at the table form immediately catching onto the traitor in their midst, though allowing some hints to slip through will make the big reveal feel less like a slap in the face. One thing you should avoid letting slip is your reaction to an evil character secretly doing evil things. For example, a character I've previously written a bit about: Delo. My DM for him knew full well that every insight check made against him would be met with a deception check, but nonetheless said, "Bex, roll persuasion or deception." He also never questioned me never saying the exact number I rolled (I had a +12 to the skill while the best insight in the party was a +7), being perfectly fine with me saying "yeah I got higher" or "I lose, womp womp." He also kept a straight face when someone in the party noted the slightly different speech patterns Delo had from Quilad, the version of the character everyone was familiar with.
Hardest of all is when your player is looking to be a non evil antagonist. What makes this so difficult is the justification. You need to help the player figure out what makes their character a good person in addition to what makes them bad for their supposed allies. Unless the campaign such a character would be in will involve most of the party making especially immoral decisions (i.e. assassinating a noble to start a revolution), this character would be a good(ish) person surrounded by other good(ish) people trying to make good(ish) choices that go against what this one character believes for some reason. That reason better be good, otherwise the character falls into the previous category. That being said, neutral aligned characters exist for a reason, so maybe your player could look into merely playing a character that serves their interests, which happens to make them antagonistic at times. This is much easier to deal with, and the DM's job is merely to prevent the inevitable conflict from being taken personally.
Say you wind up the DM to a player who managed to work with you to make a character that's both good and a problem for those around them. What does that look like in-game in terms of management? Thankfully, making them seem good will be much easier than the previous category; the character is, in fact, good…technically. There isn't much you have to do for this kind of character that you wouldn't already be doing as a DM, so once that drafting session is over, the pain is largely over.
Largely.
It should probably go without saying, but regardless of which of these three categories a character at your table falls in, the probability of interplayer conflict is high. As long as everyone remembers that it's a game and all in good fun, this conflict will be juicy. That being said, it's up to the DM to make sure it stays in the game and stays fun. If this stops being the case, step in. If things seem off after a session, check in. As a DM, you might already have your own ways of managing these conflicts, but now you'll have to do it quite a bit.
Be ready for anything. Evil and/or antagonistic characters at the table are never required, but they're very fun when done correctly. Take the right steps, and your players will be able to fill the role of crazed maniacs.
By guest contributor Bex Saper, President of RPI DND Club
