In the primordial days of D&D, it was imagined as a game about amoral dungeon-crawling, where the Gold you hauled out of those ancient castles, deep caverns, and abandoned temples literally was the XP you earned to level up. Alignment initially focused more on the law/chaos axis, but the game worked out just fine with evil party members because ideology and morals could take a backseat to survival within a hostile environment like a dungeon.
As the game has evolved, and the influence of fantasy stories with more traditionally heroic protagonists became stronger (surely the popularity of the Lord of the Rings movies in the early 2000s, where its heroes are on their adventure purely to save the world, was a part of that,) I think it has been trickier to have truly villainous PCs. Adventures are usually about stopping some monstrous villain.
To be sure, a villainous protagonist could find themselves opposed to a villainous antagonist (consider the seasons-long arc in Breaking Bad where Walter White contends with Gus Fring, the irony being that Gus, while monstrous in his own ways, is probably not quite as evil as the show's main character).
Despite the meaning of the words (protagonist is the instigator of the "agony" of the dramatic story,) which originate in Greek tragedies (such as Oedipus killing his father and unwittingly sleeping with his mother, and thus bringing ruin upon himself) modern storytelling, especially in genre fiction, typically has heroes reacting to some nefarious plot. Luke Skywalker might want to go out into the world and be a hero, but the specific opportunity he gets to do that is a response to the Empire killing his adoptive parents to cover up their pursuit of the documented weaknesses in their new doomsday weapon. Luke is reacting to the Empire's newest overreach, rather than setting out with a specific goal that then gets interfered with by an antagonist.
There's an argument to be made, thus, that a lot of modern heroes are actually heroic antagonists to a villain protagonist.
I bring this up because of how adventure design probably needs to work with evil-aligned PCs.
If you are doing a heroic campaign, you can still have evil party members. Neither evil nor good are monoliths (in the former case, there's a major part of D&D lore, the Blood War, that makes that clear). Just because a tyrannical red dragon is burning towns in the area, the fact that they're causing suffering doesn't mean that your aspiring crime-lord Rogue won't have beef with them. Hell, even if you're an aspiring Lich (something that you can do with the Path of the Lich feats) you might really object to that dragon burning so many bodies that could have been perfectly serviceable zombie minions.
One example of this I really like is Spike in season two of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. When Buffy's vampire boyfriend Angel loses the curse that restored his soul, Angel undertakes a maniacal plot to unleash a demon that will swallow up the entire world. Spike, still a soulless vampire, decides to help Buffy stop him - not out of any benevolent intention, but because he likes that the world exists with all these humans walking around full of blood for him to drink. Sure, an apocalyptic cataclysm would be a great feat of evil, but Spike isn't into evil just for the sake of it.
One of the things I really like to think a lot about alignment is that there's the "capital" versus "lower-case" versions of each extreme of the chart (as well as Neutrality). "Capital E" Evil is someone who pursues evil ideologically, wanting to maximize suffering and pain as much as possible. "Lowercase E" Evil is someone who pursues their own interests, and is fully willing to do evil acts to get what they want, not because they want to be evil, but just because they don't really care if others get hurt.
You can apply this to everything else: Capital C Chaotic would be someone who actively wants to tear down systems and institutions, while Lowercase C Chaotic might be someone who just kind of wants to live outside of them.
Lowercase E evil characters are usually going to be less evil than Capital E evil characters (though not strictly - a somewhat impotent goblin serial killer who dreams of ruining the world but doesn't have the means to do so might be dedicated to evil but be less harmful than a callous noble who readily starts wars to distract from domestic unrest). But I also think it's going to be far easier to fit a Lowercase E evil character into a party of adventurers.
But what about our specific options?
5E already has a fair number of "dark"-themed class options. Shadow Monks, Aberrant Sorcery, most Warlock patrons - there are plenty of options for characters that could come off as quite villainous.
Looking at the recent UA, the theming of the subclasses leans toward the villainous, but I'm not sure that any of the subclasses really force you into an evil space.
Pestilence Domain, admittedly, forces you to justify worshipping a god of disease. I did mention in my breakdown of that subclass that, actually, you could argue that God in Exodus acts in a Pestilence aspect, afflicting the Egyptians with the Ten Plagues (many are more invasive species, but you've got the Boils there and arguably the death of the firstborns). I think you could also argue a Pestilence God as simultaneously being a god of medicine, evoking Paracelsus' "dosage makes the poison" and how a deity might inflict and cure diseases.
Circle of the Titan is, I think, the least obviously villainous, because the most iconic of the Titans, the Tarrasque, is actually a morally neutral figure. Sure, Krakens and Blobs of Annihilation are evil-aligned, but I can very easily see a Druid who follows this path out of a respect for the majesty of these beings that doesn't really depend on beneficence or malice.
Hell Knight Fighters do start to get into that truly morally questionable side of things: one can presume that the Infernal Wounds you inflict are particularly painful, and you might slay a foe and send their soul to the Nine Hells to become a Lemure, which is pretty unambiguously a bad thing to do (though I guess you could argue that if you kill an evil person, they're going to wind up as a Lemure, Manes, or Larva anyway).
Demonic Sorcery is, of course, tied to the chaotic evil of the Abyss, but Sorcerers usually get their powers through means outside of their control, and so it's hard to blame them for what kind of powers they get.
On a mechanical level, the Path of the Death Knight is actually somewhat neutral - it gives you some admittedly dark-themed spells and makes you undead by the end of it, but none of its spells are anything a good-aligned character couldn't get. The Hellfire Orb, sure, is unique, but again, it's nothing that someone couldn't do with a Fireball and Circle of Death. Flavor-wise, a Death Knight has to have turned their back on goodness in some way, and will remain a death knight until they atone. But I honestly think that that lore, while cool, could be expanded to include the status extending to someone who is cursed rather than choosing this path.
The Path of the Lich, though, really leans into consuming souls. I realize that there are different interpretations of what a soul literally is, but I tend to define it as the consciousness of a sentient being, and so the destruction of a soul is worse than killing someone, and maybe is the most unforgivable evil act because it robs them of any future and afterlife. While the UA post does point out the occasional good-aligned Lich, it's hard to imagine ever using Soul Siphon (a feature that most other feats interact with) and still consider yourself good. (I do have a prominent Lich NPC in my homebrew setting that I think is either Lawful Neutral or even Lawful Good, and I don't know if he just doesn't need to consume souls or if he has a system by which criminals condemned for execution who would prefer oblivion over going to the Lower Planes in the afterlife can volunteer to feed his Soul Jar. Alternatively, I might interpret a soul's "consumption" as merely being trapped in the phylactery rather than destroyed, and that if you destroy it, it frees all the Lich's victims).
I do think, ultimately, that any of these options could probably work for antiheroes or at least lowercase E evil characters. The key is that you should really coordinate with fellow players and your DM if you want to play an evil character and make sure there are clear boundaries on how that evil is expressed - what kind of in-world behavior is rich characterization and what is just going to derail the narrative.