>>47312768
Playing an evil character, huh? Is it an evil campaign? Cause if it's not, it might be tricky. A lot of DMs don't even entertain the idea of evil characters in their game simply because of how potentially disruptive they can be for the rest of the party. I would ask your DM first, and maybe the other players too, before devoting a ton of time to it.

Also, what edition are you going to be playing?

>>47312825
Well this is what I'm trying to figure out. I'm not really interested in provoking petty fights.
I'm just really trying to play some character that us truly looking out for #1 and any other alignment seems lacking.

Playing someone that can't decide to take a slave here and there or engage in some "off screen" torture seems very limiting.
Edition is probably 3rd.

>>47312970
Talk to the other players first before you decide to go full evil. If someone is playing a paladin, or any character that strongly opposes evil, it's going to devolve into a petty shit flinging contest.. And you're gonna be asshole for bringing an evil character.

If you absolutely want to have the freedom to do everything without having to worry about anything, there's always Chaotic Neutral, but once again, it has a rather nasty stigma attached to it.

The big problem is, by their very nature evil characters tend to clash against a typical party. Now, if you're all just mercs looking to make a buck, evil character will be fine! But if it's a typical, heroic, adventuring party.. Not so much.

If it's 3.5, from a mechanical perspective, bards aren't the best. However, I'd recommend sticking your skill points into social skills (especially diplomacy).

>>47312970
The simple answer for playing evil? DON'T. Unless, as previously mentioned, it's an evil campaign.

The much longer answer is as follows: I would almost recommend playing Lawful Evil, except you're a bard so that's right out. So, we have Neutral Evil with the goal of money, advancing as much as possible and leaving none for anyone else. First problem: Many parties agree to equally share the loot. How's this guy going to deal with that? Second Problem: WHY is he working with A GROUP in the first place? Chaotic Neutral has the same problem, where if you're playing it in any way correctly, you should be out of the party after the first adventure.

Answer those questions before you go any farther. Can this character deal with splitting loot equally, and can he deal with a group at all? If he can't, rework him until he can.

Then we hit the immediate problem, is there a Paladin or a Good aligned Cleric in the party? If yes, crumple that sheet up and throw it away. Because eventually, either the Paladin or the Cleric is going to use Detect Evil, and you are FUCKED.

Wanna tell them out of character that you're playing evil? Many problems lie down that road. Even if you do tell them, and also swear by the Emperor that you won't backstab 'em, they're still not going to trust you. They have no reason too! The Cleric will heal you last, if at all. No one is helping you out.

Now, if everyone's playing neutral, or if it is in fact an evil campaign, you just might be able to get away with it. Otherwise, there are so many roadblocks in your way, it won't be fun.

>>47313074
Yeah I kind of forsee the paladin in the group whomever that is just trying to detect evil all the time.
Busting balls for no good reason. Lol

Is there any other options for a Character of relaxed morals that is not thief.

Mainly I don't want my character to have to be concerned about committing evil. Maybe even insert doubt about morally grey areas. Nudge the party in to taking the slightly riskier job for a better pay day.

The idea of being a bard is mainly being likable. Sure you can acomplish stuff if you are physically superior, I just want to stay out of harms way and get rich.

>>47312768
I'd use some kind of sword, since it doubles as a status symbol. Proficiencies would most likely be social or knowledge based, which allow him to work people and always remain informed. Probably sees his elders as lacking ambition so not afraid of stabbing when diplomacy doesn't work.

Like >>47312825 said, run it past your DM. I think NE could work as long as you take evil to mean selfish above all else and not violent edginess

>>47312768
>>47313272
Honestly your character sounds less evil and more neutral, but that may be just me.
The way I see it, being selfish alone does not really qualify as evil, you have to actively delight in the suffering of others or put your interests far above as to sabotage the welfare of others.
In fact, just making your character CN might solve a lot of inter-party problems, but you have to make in clear to your group that you are not going for the randumb angle.

>>47313185
Yes. Maybe I'm hoping too much.

I can deal with the mistrust, I do however have problems with paladins just going gestapo on characters because "i see your impure soul"

IC: I don't mind others getting their own. A few gold pieces, a gilded crown on your brow it is not the glint and glamour I'm after, I want the real price. Respect of the masses, the girls and the real money. I really have no use for awesome magical weapons, I rather have the trust and loyalty of the men that wield them.

It doesn't say anywhere that evil necromancer can't go to the store and buy the shit for their spells at a fair price.

>>47313372
As a DM, I've seen players try to play that kind of character over, and over again, and fail more times than they succeed. Every time I see it, I try to warn them, but they say 'I can do it right, you'll see!' only to get their character lynched by the party or have no support when their consequences for their actions catch up to them.

If you really want to play that kind of character, you better know exactly what you're doing, be a good enough liar to fool your party, and always remember that at any moment it could all go up in smoke with one failed die roll. If you're cool with that, go ahead. If not? Then make something else.

>>47313657
What are the faults?
I understand that the point at which greed gets to them, or something goes missing and you are the number one suspect, a prisoner gets ganked or something and the party becomes hyper aggressive with no real proof.

After some thought I may just be trying to make a character that us just immune to moral judgement.

My second idea was playing a butcher and cook.
Maybe a Ranger type that blazed trail for a caravan out in the steppe in order to set camp and his chow Waggon.

Opposite of the greed spectrum, yet still morally ambiguous. I just really dislike the morality motivation questions.

I don't want my character to be devastated if he has to kill a kid that would ruin a plan. I want to play a slightly nihilistic pragmatist. Why is it so hard?

Not even trying to be edgy cunt here, I just want the option of not being encumbered by gilt.

>>47313810
Guilt...

>>47313272
>Busting balls for no good reason. Lol
>>47313372
>, I do however have problems with paladins just going gestapo on characters because "i see your impure soul"
>>47313810
>the party becomes hyper aggressive with no real proof
There is absolutely zero chance that you aren't going to cock this up and come whining here. Don't do it. Especially not if you're entire motivation is essentially "I don't want no pesky roleplaying getting in the way of my murderhoboing."

>>47313930
Your motivations have to be simple as fuck or else you are not doing it right.

What ever happened to nuances ?

No you either paramount of virtue or scum of the earth.
Die you evil worm!

Dont listen to moralfag. Play an evil character as you would a good one: not going overboard with evilness and you will be fine. You dont go around giving all your money to beggars.

>>47314249
If you aren't actually doing evil shit, you aren't an evil character. If you are doing evil shit, you have to be exceedingly careful lest the highly skilled team of evil exterminators you hang out with finds out and exterminates you.
>>47314206
What are you babbling about? I'm deriding OP because his entire goal is to remove nuance because "lol sociopath."

>>47313930
So paladins that are relentless in their pursue to literally kill anything evil are examples of good role playing to you?

I sense evil?
Lynch the fuckers

They are nobles surrounded by soldiers
LYNCH THE LOT OF THEM!

or its just a homeless old man.

KILL HIM.

Is this acceptable to you?
Do you ever wonder how they managed to stay out of the dungeon for murdering randoms?

>>47314278

Unless you are Jesuchrist himself or the Antichrist, you dont need to go out of yo u way committing good/eviĺ acts all the bloody time. A good charactar can be just as disruptice as an evil one.

>>47314278
LN
NG
LG

These are all the same?

They all see evil the same way and it must be exterminated at all cost?

>>47314321
No, but they aren't just going to stand by and let evil continue.
>>47314325
You don't have to commit them all the time, but I never said you did.
>>47314349
The latter two will definitely act to prevent evil, especially if they find it lurking in their midst.

>>47314478
Evil characters do evil things but so do neutral characters if the situations present themselves for greed or doing literally the lesser evil.
If you play an evil character that is not after petty shit like cash or loot, how many evil deeds will you decide are to be committed in order to remain xevil?

>>47313366
he is fine with maiming for his greed. He is putting his interests far above as to sabotage the welfare of others.

>>47314478
Nobody says they have to stand by it. Just turn your back when a few fingers need braking, for the greater good that is.

I'm not murder, End the world! Evil. just not a goody two shoes.

>>47314901
sounds like a darker shade of neutral really

>>47314901
>I'm not saying they have to stand by it
>they just have to stand by it when I do it
Just make your character neutral, retard.

>>47312768
>i wanna play a neutral evil

Play Cartman.
Cartman is the epitome of neutral evil

>>47312768
I've got the best option for you: stop playing games with character alignment.