PDA

View Full Version : for the evilz: a more realistic view



Samb
2009-12-24, 11:00 AM
I personally don't allow my players to play or create evil PCs when I DM but that is mainly so I can avoid the whole "I'm evil so I can screw with other people" debate.

That fact is you can't. A reason to do something is not a justification. Fact is, most people are evil. Most people are selfish and will cheat you if the opportunity arised. Serial killers and pedophiles often are well respected members of society. If history has taught us anything it is: people suck.

And yet society functions, civilization hasn't imploded. Why is that? Because most people, evil or not, know how to channel their impulses to fit in. A sadist might become a surgeon because he likes to cut people, a tyrant might become a principle or lawyer, a nerophile an undertaker, a killer might become a cop etc. No one does things just because of their alighment.

I don't know why this is such a hard thing for people to grasp. Evilness still take a back seat to profit. Most will not do evil for evil's sake. They do things to benefit themselves with as little risk as possible.

Why don't people get this? Is it because many gamers don't see all the grey between good and evil? Or are we all a bunch of Neitze wanna-be's and nilism is in vogue?

Arakune
2009-12-24, 11:03 AM
I personally don't allow my players to play or create evil PCs when I DM but that is mainly so I can avoid the whole "I'm evil so I can screw with other people" debate.

That fact is you can't. A reason to do something is not a justification. Fact is, most people are evil. Most people are selfish and will cheat you if the opportunity arised. Serial killers and pedophiles often are well respected members of society. If history has taught us anything it is: people suck.

And yet society functions, civilization hasn't imploded. Why is that? Because most people, evil or not, know how to channel their impulses to fit in. A sadist might become a surgeon because he likes to cut people, a tyrant might become a principle or lawyer, a nerophile an undertaker, a killer might become a cop etc. No one does things just because of their alighment.

I don't know why this is such a hard thing for people to grasp. Evilness still take a back seat to profit. Most will not do evil for evil's sake. They do things to benefit themselves with as little risk as possible.

Why don't people get this? Is it because many gamers don't see all the grey between good and evil? Or are we all a bunch of Neitze wanna-be's and nilism is in vogue?

Let's not fall into realworld politics here. Just punish the PCs if they are puppy eating evil without any reasonable goal. Make good adventurers hunt them down or something.

Samb
2009-12-24, 11:16 AM
Let's not fall into realworld politics here. Just punish the PCs if they are puppy eating evil without any reasonable goal. Make good adventurers hunt them down or something.

I avoid that whole thing by not allowing evil PC to begin with.

"Real world politics"? Did I say anything about Republicans or Democrats, or anything even remotely involving politics? This isn't a political statement, I'm not trying to get your vote, nor am I up for any award so no politics here.

How's that for a disclaimer?

Tengu_temp
2009-12-24, 11:20 AM
Fact is, most people are evil. Most people are selfish and will cheat you if the opportunity arised. Serial killers and pedophiles often are well respected members of society. If history has taught us anything it is: people suck.


Nope. That's no fact, that's life seen through very cynical glasses. Most people are selfish, but not to such extent that they will actively harm others to achieve their goals. Most people are, in DND terms, Neutral, with Evil on the second position and Good third - but not distant third.

vanyell
2009-12-24, 11:24 AM
I disagree, as I personally believe in the inherent good in people. Serial killers and such are the exception, not the rule. As for your suggestion that cops become so because they like killing is so far off the mark that it astounds me. one of the traits of a police officer is a sense of justice, and people who are in it "for the killing" are weeded out during academy.

In short, I strongly disagree

Duke of URL
2009-12-24, 11:24 AM
I would disagree with "most people are evil" -- in fact good/evil neutrality is probably the most common state ("leave me alone and I'll leave you alone"), though I'll concede that abusive (evil) is probably more common than altruistic (good), leading to the running average being on the evil side of neutral.

One thing the alignment system doesn't represent very well is the degree of commitment to an alignment. You either are that alignment, or you aren't. But very few "real world" people would truly be aligned in a D&D context -- most people would gravitate toward neutrality as a state of unalignment, not a proactive philosophical position. Even those with a more defined philosophical worldview will generally find themselves as "somewhat" X or "leaning" Y.

That aside, there's a difference between, say "Neutral Evil" and "Stupid Evil". "Stupid" anything is going to face a pretty rapid and localized burst of natural selection, if you get my drift. (Or as the police sometimes say, it's the dumb ones that get caught.)

Samb
2009-12-24, 11:26 AM
Nope. That's no fact, that's life seen through very cynical glasses. Most people are selfish, but not to such extent that they will actively harm others to achieve their goals. Most people are, in DND terms, Neutral, with Evil on the second position and Good third - but not distant third.

I don't deny that I am a bit of a cynic, but it doesn't change my view that evil people will try to benefit themselves with the least amount of risk. Least amount of risk doesn't include being on the wrong side of the law. Like I said, tyrants, sadists, and even killers make contributions to society while still having their (evil) needs met. No one really does evil for evil's sake. Profit first.

Riffington
2009-12-24, 11:27 AM
I've lost my wallet twice, and both times had it returned with all the money in it.
Every day I see people -unbidden- do nice things for random patients at my hospital. And when I've asked strangers for help/directions/advice I've never yet been lied to. Neutral>good>evil.

And as OP points out, most evil is not "vile puppykiller". Just gossip, willingness to take an object that's lying around unattended, etc.

Saph
2009-12-24, 11:27 AM
That fact is you can't. A reason to do something is not a justification. Fact is, most people are evil. Most people are selfish and will cheat you if the opportunity arised.

[citation needed]

Samb
2009-12-24, 11:30 AM
I disagree, as I personally believe in the inherent good in people. Serial killers and such are the exception, not the rule. As for your suggestion that cops become so because they like killing is so far off the mark that it astounds me. one of the traits of a police officer is a sense of justice, and people who are in it "for the killing" are weeded out during academy.

In short, I strongly disagree

I didn't mean to over generalize cops or surgeons, just saying that there are avenues for even evil people to "get their kicks" without causing mayhem. Hell, even contribute to society. Which is grossly at odds with how players view and play evil in DnD. You could be evil on your sheet but still do good things. There is no conflict. I just felt like giving some examples and didn't mean to offend the whole profession.

I work in a hospital and I know plenty of surgoens who aren't twisted.

Tengu_temp
2009-12-24, 11:30 AM
I don't deny that I am a bit of a cynic, but it doesn't change my view that evil people will try to benefit themselves with the least amount of risk. Least amount of risk doesn't include being on the wrong side of the law. Like I said, tyrants, sadists, and even killers make contributions to society while still having their (evil) needs met. No one really does evil for evil's sake. Profit first.

Ah, I agree with the rest of your post. Just not the "most people are evil" part.

Thrice Dead Cat
2009-12-24, 11:31 AM
For the record, not everyone agrees with (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RousseauWasRight) your sentiments. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/JadeColoredGlasses)

Saintjebus
2009-12-24, 11:37 AM
If, as you say, someone who is evil(likes cutting people) goes into the position of a surgeon, where he cuts people(saving lives) that actually, by D&D morality, makes him good.

D&D morality, unlike real morality, uses an objective system for good and evil. If you help someone, that is good. If you hurt someone, that is evil. Obviously, that's a generalization, but for the most part, that's how morality in D&D works.

And yes, I know that by that definition, adventurers are evil. Yes, by the definition of alignment(such as it is), adventurers are evil.

hamishspence
2009-12-24, 11:38 AM
I figure that both "most people are evil" and "most people are good" are ovesimplifications, as is "most people are neutral"

Depending on the book, but especially in 3.5, evil alignment tends to be a long way from "For the Evulz". Savage Species, for example, presents the notion that evil guys can be kind and loving to their family and friends, but cruel and ruthless to those they deem their enemies. Champions of Ruin has "for the greater good" as one of the possible paths to evil alignment. BoVD has a person whose evil consists primarily of turning a blind eye to the evil acts of others, and taking money to do so.

This kind of evil is a lot more realistic.

Sliver
2009-12-24, 11:38 AM
For the record, not everyone agrees with (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RousseauWasRight) your sentiments. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/JadeColoredGlasses)

For the record, in this thread, you are the most evil being. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TVTropesWillRuinYourLife) :smallannoyed:

BloodyAngel
2009-12-24, 11:51 AM
Not to get dragged into the "People are good vs People are evil" debate... but people are people. D&D alignments rarely factor into the real world well, and trying to assume they do in this case will just start another long, drawn out alignment thread. Morality depends on way too many things and waxes and wanes based on circumstance. Sure, some people are less moral than others, but rarely do they consider themselves that way. Also, some systems of morality are entirely cultural and can change based on the times and the place. A good non-politically charged example of this is the show "Rome". One of the main characters is a slave-owner and a killer with a vastly different sense of values and morality. He's also easily the most moral character on the show.

Saying "People are X alignment" as a whole is a bad idea. It's colored by your own experience and thoughts, not an accurate description of people as a whole... and the alignment system is too flawed to begin with for it to make sense at all. Your opinion on "What people are" shows more about yourself than about people. So let's just drop the whole thing before it turns into a giant, festering cluster@#$% of ranting and pointless arguing.

I am fully aware that what I've said will only fan the fire. But then perhaps that was my intent. I AM evil after all.

Xzeno
2009-12-24, 11:51 AM
If you are interested in the subject, study moral philosophy. Depending on your age, education and area, you could find a class. Look into it if you happen to be in college.

I disagree with your assessment that people are evil: Selfish, in so far as they want to succeed, sure. But that's not evil unless they go about it in an evil manner.

I agree with your saying that evil people have goals. My villains (DM) always have goals and reasons for doing what they do, and not "end all of creation" goals either. They tend to be more "No rest for the wicked" villains.

Oh, and just a tip: Never use "people suck" as a justification for evil. That's not a road down which you want to go.

Telonius
2009-12-24, 12:01 PM
EDIT: Nevermind, move along, nothing to see here. :smallsmile:

Thrice Dead Cat
2009-12-24, 12:02 PM
For the record, in this thread, you are the most evil being. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TVTropesWillRuinYourLife) :smallannoyed:

I would argue against that. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/SugarWiki/TvTropesWillEnhanceYourLife?from=Main.TvTropesWill EnhanceYourLife) After all, it's not inherently evil. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TropesAreTools?from=Main.TropesAreNotBad)

As for the task at hand, I've got to agree that most people simply are. Sure, I prefer a more idealistic world view where people are inherently good, but that doesn't make it (or it's inverse) true.

DND's alignment system is kind of buggy, what with the whole absolute scale and all, and things like the Book of Exalted Deeds and Book of Vile Darkness don't help much, considering some of the more cartoony examples there-in.

hamishspence
2009-12-24, 12:03 PM
Saying "People are X alignment" as a whole is a bad idea. It's colored by your own experience and thoughts, not an accurate description of people as a whole... and the alignment system is too flawed to begin with for it to make sense at all.

the closest thing to a general statement in D&D is "Humans, as a race, are decidedly neutral in alignment" and going by the description, that's on the Law-chaos axis.

While BoVD is a little cartoonish, its list of evil acts includes some that a lot of people insist are "non-evil by default" like stealing, lying, betrayal, etc. And some (lying) are given as "potentially not evil, given sufficiently good motives and context"

it also has some slightly more nuanced villains to go with the Complete Monsters.

On moral absolutes- there aren't all that many in D&D sourcebooks. PHB2 on the paladin suggests "Aside from moral absolutes, an ethical code is based on the greatest good of the greatest number" - so, unless the actions conflict strongly with such absolutes, the good of the many can come into play.

Vonotar
2009-12-24, 12:27 PM
I agree with your saying that evil people have goals. My villains (DM) always have goals and reasons for doing what they do, and not "end all of creation" goals either. They tend to be more "No rest for the wicked" villains.


Just to take a quick dash into off-topic, what is a "No rest for the wicked" villain? I've never come across the phrase as a description before. :smallredface:
Regards.

Baron Corm
2009-12-24, 12:28 PM
Evil does not mean abusive. Abusive is not the opposite of altruisitic. Selfish is. An evil person looks out for himself instead of other people, that's all. I think most people are good as a default state (as a survival of the species instinct), and evil when something that really matters to them occurs (as a survival of the self instinct). How important an issue must be for a person to "switch" to evil is really how we tend to measure how evil a person is.

So your players that go around killing people are not evil, they are sadistic. I don't think you would have a problem with your players if you made this distinction to them and they understood it. Additionally, nothing is preventing them from taking their "Good" character and going around killing people. It would just change their alignment after the game starts. All you want to disallow is senseless sadism, for the sake of continuing the game. If they would have more fun the other way... either let them play the way they want or get different players. There's no sense in forcing them to play the way you want to if they don't enjoy it. One could even call that an act of evil.

Yukitsu
2009-12-24, 12:31 PM
You'd probably like reading the Leviathin. Whole philosophy of the guy is that people are suck unless society pigeon holes them into following the rules.

Woodsman
2009-12-24, 12:42 PM
There are examples in history where people actually have committed evil acts for no real reason.

Leopold and Loeb is one. They took a 14 year-old boy off the street and killed him to A. See what it was like and B. see if they could get away with it, which seems an awful lot like "I killed him because I'm Evil" to me.

Duke of URL
2009-12-24, 12:53 PM
Evil does not mean abusive. Abusive is not the opposite of altruisitic. Selfish is. An evil person looks out for himself instead of other people, that's all.

I fully, completely, and in all other ways disagree.

Selfish is not evil. Selfish, by its very definition, is about self. One can do evil acts for selfish motives, but selfishness is not, in and of itself, evil. A selfish person does not necessarily do things to harm other people, but they likewise do not go out of their way to help them, either, without the thought of a reward.

Selfish is neutral on the good/evil axis.

Evil is evil. Evil does things to other people. It uses, abuses, and discards them. Regardless of the motives (it is quite possible to be selfless evil, in fact),

Selfish motives can lead to good acts -- the previously mentioned reward. Praise. Fame. The respect of someone you want to impress. These are all selfish motives, but nevertheless good acts can come of them.

ericgrau
2009-12-24, 12:56 PM
Regardless evil people will not go willy nilly on hurting others because this would quickly get them in trouble. True evil is doing whatever you can get away with without regard to what may happen to others.Not a desire to hurt others for the sake of hurting them. You can be selfish without being evil, but an evil person who hurts others without a self-serving goal in mind almost never exists outside of cartoons. If you're playing an evil PC and you're looking only at what you do to others, you're looking in the wrong direction.

Heck, as Rich points out, an evil person may even help his friends and family.

hamishspence
2009-12-24, 01:38 PM
Selfish is not evil. Selfish, by its very definition, is about self. One can do evil acts for selfish motives, but selfishness is not, in and of itself, evil. A selfish person does not necessarily do things to harm other people, but they likewise do not go out of their way to help them, either, without the thought of a reward.

Thats one definition of selfish- behaviour primarily in your own interest.

Other definitions, however, are "behaviour in your own interest at the expense of others" and that selfishness is evil by definition because the word means "excessive self-interested behaviour"- that is, self-interested behaviour that harms others.

I think though that this takes the meaning of the word a bit too far.


Heck, as Rich points out, an evil person may even help his friends and family.

Rich's description almost exactly matches Savage Species- so it's not like he was the only one to make that point.

Samb
2009-12-24, 02:00 PM
There are examples in history where people actually have committed evil acts for no real reason.

Leopold and Loeb is one. They took a 14 year-old boy off the street and killed him to A. See what it was like and B. see if they could get away with it, which seems an awful lot like "I killed him because I'm Evil" to me.

These guys didn't do it for the evilz per say. Leopold did it to show that he was above the very concept of morality. That the very concept of morality had no hold on him. Loeb was a weak-willed guy who got strung along by Leopold's CHR.

I'm pretty encouraged with everyone's responses. I am a cynic, and I do think people suck but I also feel that people still can do good even though they are inherently evil. I think reading too much Conrad, Lord of the Flies and Clockwork Orange has disillusioned me.

It's true that IRL people just are. They are evil, good whatever, but society still functions despite the extremes. Evil PCs in DnD could act like their real world counterparts instead of always being the "for the evilz" type. That was my main complaint, and I really don't get why players can't see that and always play the "stupid evil" archetype.

Saintjebus
2009-12-24, 02:09 PM
It's because in-game, it's really hard to play any evil that's not stupid evil, unless you are the dm running the villain.

Note: I'm not saying it's impossible, because I know of games that do just that, and do it succcessfully. I'm just saying that it's hard, and because it's hard, your average player won't want to put forth the effort to do so.

Woodsman
2009-12-24, 02:19 PM
These guys didn't do it for the evilz per say. Leopold did it to show that he was above the very concept of morality. That the very concept of morality had no hold on him. Loeb was a weak-willed guy who got strung along by Leopold's CHR.

That's not it. Loeb did it because he had always fantasized about leading a crime syndicate and controlling the streets right under the noses of the cops. He was the perfect criminal: he got the job done and was never caught.

Leopold was more strung along by this, due his own psychology where he imagined himself as a slave to Loeb. Leopold was both physically and mentally superior in these fantasies, yet he deferred to Loeb.

Baron Corm
2009-12-24, 02:33 PM
I fully, completely, and in all other ways disagree.

Selfish is not evil. Selfish, by its very definition, is about self. One can do evil acts for selfish motives, but selfishness is not, in and of itself, evil. A selfish person does not necessarily do things to harm other people, but they likewise do not go out of their way to help them, either, without the thought of a reward.

Selfish is neutral on the good/evil axis.

Evil is evil. Evil does things to other people. It uses, abuses, and discards them. Regardless of the motives (it is quite possible to be selfless evil, in fact),

Selfish motives can lead to good acts -- the previously mentioned reward. Praise. Fame. The respect of someone you want to impress. These are all selfish motives, but nevertheless good acts can come of them.

I suppose evil is a subjective word, and you take it to mean abusive or sadistic, while I take it to mean selfish. No possible way of agreeing there if we define the word differently. I would like to note for your last point that I also define alignment as your motives, regardless of the "acts", or consequences. I feel that if you save a litter of puppies, but meant to kill them all, you're still evil. No point debating that either, though.

To answer the OP's questoin, I suppose it's because everyone defines evil differently.

Yukitsu
2009-12-24, 02:35 PM
It's because in-game, it's really hard to play any evil that's not stupid evil, unless you are the dm running the villain.

Note: I'm not saying it's impossible, because I know of games that do just that, and do it succcessfully. I'm just saying that it's hard, and because it's hard, your average player won't want to put forth the effort to do so.

Really? I've been finding it pretty easy, but that may be because I'm not trying to be overtly evil.

erikun
2009-12-24, 02:39 PM
Opinions on another alignment debate? Sure, I can probably spare a few minutes to...

Fact is, most people are evil.
WOAH, look at my wrist! It's time to be somewhere else completely!

A bit more seriously, if you consider "people are evil" to be true, then there is no way to have a meaningful alignment debate. Anything I can say, do, reason, rationalize, or reference will just be countered by "they are secretly evil and just doing that because" whatever reason they have.

On the other hand, refusing to allow players to run evil characters while stating that all characters are evil is an interesting paradox.

Mike_G
2009-12-24, 02:54 PM
I actually don't believe in Evil.

I don't think it exists as a force or a motivation.

People do terrible things, yes. I think saying they do them because they are Evil is an oversimplification. People generally have a motivation that we can understand, if not accept or sympathize with. Usually out of greed, lust, envy, anger, or some misguided sense of righteousness.

I do agree with the OP that you can have 'evil' tendencies and be a functioning part of society. I've been in the Marines and Emergency Services, and many truly flawed human beings make very good soldiers, EMT's cops or hosedraggers Firefighters.

If you really enjoy getting in fights, kicking in doors, the sight of blood, breaking stuff, driving fast, and so on, we'd like to talk to you, but I don't want you dating my sister. If the sight of suffering bothers you, you should go do something else, but you are probably a better person.

Samb
2009-12-24, 03:48 PM
Weather or not you agree with me that people are inherently evil or not is besides the point, or even your definition of evil. The point is evil people are out there, but they for the most part fit into the human race without really standing out until they are caught, or get too bad.

I simply assume people are assssholes because of sites like 4chan and the GIFT, that once people know there will be no consequences for their actions their true nature shows. I can't play Modern Warfare 2 without people calling other people racial slurs every 2 minutes.

There really isn't a reason why an evil PC can't act like a normal person because evil is a type of normal..... sort of. You may draw the line at different points but you all (should) know that a line exists and which side is evil and which side is good (right?)

Here are some extreme examples: know that guy Jeffery Dahmer? He was, for all intents and purposes a pretty normal guy on the surface. Ted Bundy has even been described as charming. An evil PC could very well be evil and not be disruptive to his or her party.

I see a bunch of threads with DMs complaining about their players being evil and overtly so. I simply side step the whole debate and trouble because I assume that player will act like idiots/******* once they have a "evil" label on them. I personally don't think that is the case, but most players seem to think "evil"="lose of common civility, and common sense" I just don't get it.

Xzeno
2009-12-24, 04:04 PM
Just to take a quick dash into off-topic, what is a "No rest for the wicked" villain? I've never come across the phrase as a description before. :smallredface:
Regards.

I was referencing the song of the same name (at least I think it's the same name.) My radio station played it at least once a day for about a week. Anyway, I was saying that my villains are usually just desperate people in desperate situations: Kobolds need to eat; goblins need to raid for supplies.

In other news, threads sure go quickly 'round these parts. In my little corner of the internet, it can take hours for an interesting topic to get thirty posts. I'll try to catch up a tad:


I actually don't believe in Evil.

I don't think it exists as a force or a motivation.


Not believing in evil: Evil is a concept. This means it is real in the same sense that mathematics is real. A despot may not be surrounded by "evil particles" but if he tortures and genocides, we call that evil, regardless of his motives.

Force of motivation: A sadist who tortures someone for kicks, in whole or in part. He is doing something evil because he enjoys it.

Saintjebus
2009-12-24, 04:14 PM
Really? I've been finding it pretty easy, but that may be because I'm not trying to be overtly evil.

You may also not be an average player. :smallbiggrin:

onthetown
2009-12-24, 04:15 PM
It sounds like you just need to teach your players how to run evil characters cohesively together... Evil PCs can work, and can actually help. I have one in a party of loosely good- and neutral-aligned characters. She's very good at figuring out what the BBEG is thinking because they have the same mindset.

Not sure what that says about me, though...:smalleek:

Edit: Just read your above post, didn't see it before. Assuming they're all going to act like idiots is a good way to go, but if one of them reeeeally wants to play evil, just talk to them about how exactly they're supposed to act. I would assume you would want that person to act maturely about it. Lawful Evil is a great alignment if you need to try to restrict them since, as I understand it, it makes them more like some sort of civilized Bond villain or something.

Mike_G
2009-12-24, 05:03 PM
Not believing in evil: Evil is a concept. This means it is real in the same sense that mathematics is real. A despot may not be surrounded by "evil particles" but if he tortures and genocides, we call that evil, regardless of his motives.

Force of motivation: A sadist who tortures someone for kicks, in whole or in part. He is doing something evil because he enjoys it.

He does it for the enjoyment. For the feeling of power or the adrenaline rush.

That's not very nice, but he isn't twirling his mustache and cackling about being in the service of Evil.

He's grooving on the Dopamine cascade, like a heroin addict shooting up or a football player doing an end zone dance, or a high school kid getting to second base.

And it doesn't mean he can't go to church or vote democrat or be nice to his mom or pat kittens.

That's why I think the concept of Evil is made up to make us feel better about fighting people who do things we don't like, or worship the wrong god or read Marx instead of Nietsche.

The other guy may be in competition for important resources, or he may just be a jerk. It's hard to get people to send their sons and daughters off to fight the Jerks or die to stop the Competitors for Resources, so we ask them to send their children off to die fighting the Evildoers.

It's all PR.

nightwyrm
2009-12-24, 05:06 PM
If I may introduce the concept of the Monkeysphere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkeysphere)into this discussion. People (except for really crazy ppl) are generally nice and helpful to those who have a social relationship with them. I'm sure even the really evil dictators in our history has got some friends. The problem is that it is very easy to consider those outside our social circle to not be people with their own lives, hopes, dreams, pain etc.

Another problem is that since we humans are so good at abstract thinking, we can even include abstract concepts like country or ideology in our monkeysphere.

hamishspence
2009-12-24, 05:11 PM
Savage Species said something very like that.

As did The Giant, in the Gaming section of this site.

Samb
2009-12-24, 05:16 PM
He does it for the enjoyment. For the feeling of power or the adrenaline rush.

That's not very nice, but he isn't twirling his mustache and cackling about being in the service of Evil.

He's grooving on the Dopamine cascade, like a heroin addict shooting up or a football player doing an end zone dance, or a high school kid getting to second base.

And it doesn't mean he can't go to church or vote democrat or be nice to his mom or pat kittens.

That's why I think the concept of Evil is made up to make us feel better about fighting people who do things we don't like, or worship the wrong god or read Marx instead of Nietsche.

The other guy may be in competition for important resources, or he may just be a jerk. It's hard to get people to send their sons and daughters off to fight the Jerks or die to stop the Competitors for Resources, so we ask them to send their children off to die fighting the Evildoers.

It's all PR.
I'm not sure I can endorse this kind of thinking. While I think people are mostly evil, this type of thinking has been used in criminal courts and universally rejected as a defense. And for good reason. "I'm just following my sociopathic tendencies" is not going to win you many murder one cases (exceptions like documented schizophrenia not withstanding).

The rationalization of doing bad things may change, but it doesn't change the fact that it is evil to begin with. The fact that people need a rationale to commit genocide or enslave others is proof enough that morality exists, and rationalizations are needed to subvert them.

Let's take slavery: Enslaving other human beings is wrong. Good thing Africans aren't human so they are okay to enslave.

The moral: Slavery is wrong.
Why it happens anyway: subverted by the fact they were not considered fully-human.

The moral still exists, so I can't say "morality is relative" but I can say "what measure is a man/mook" is relative.


Another example of evil but decent to friends and family: Paublo Escabar. Known to be a doting father and husband, and often loyal friend. He also killed vice-presidents, almost kidnapped the head of investigations, trafficed more drugs than anyone at the time, and killed people in front of their families.

hamishspence
2009-12-24, 05:20 PM
slavery comes in several strains though, from indentured servitude for crimes, which binds you, but not your descendants,

to the kind which binds all your descendants in perpetuity, from birth to death.

Enslaving the losers in a war, rather than slaughtering them all, I've seen argued as a bit of a step foward (though a lot more steps needed to be taken, it was one of the first toward "civilization" and away from "barbarism".)

Partly because, in this kind, there is less of "they aren't people, so must all be slain"- a conquered people in this context tended to integrate.

Xzeno
2009-12-24, 05:26 PM
He does it for the enjoyment. For the feeling of power or the adrenaline rush.

That's not very nice, but he isn't twirling his mustache and cackling about being in the service of Evil.

He's grooving on the Dopamine cascade, like a heroin addict shooting up or a football player doing an end zone dance, or a high school kid getting to second base.

So he's being evil because he enjoys being evil. I'm glad we are in agreement.


And it doesn't mean he can't go to church or vote democrat or be nice to his mom or pat kittens. I don't think you should list "vote democrat" as a nice thing on a forum that discourages political discussions. Otherwise, yes, bad people can do good things and visa versa. I never disagreed with that notion.


The other guy may be in competition for important resources, or he may just be a jerk. It's hard to get people to send their sons and daughters off to fight the Jerks or die to stop the Competitors for Resources, so we ask them to send their children off to die fighting the Evildoers.

It's all PR. Yes, enemies often demonize one another. Granted. This does not mean that the entire concept of evil is useless and exists only to further the goals of those in power. Worshiping the "wrong" god isn't evil. Tyranny is. Torture is. Genocide is. They should be stopped, even if only for the sake of stopping them.

Mike_G
2009-12-24, 05:28 PM
I'm not sure I can endorse this kind of thinking. While I think people are mostly evil, this type of thinking has been used in criminal courts and universally rejected as a defense. And for good reason. "I'm just following my sociopathic tendencies" is not going to win you many murder one cases (exceptions like documented schizophrenia not withstanding).


I'm not defending anything. You do something that hurts society, society should punish you for it.

I'm pointing out that classifying people as "evil" goes down the same road as classifying them as "not human."

I joined the Marines one day out of high school. I'm perfectly comfortable with the idea of shooting people because they are a threat to me, my comrades or my country.

I don't delude myself that they are any more evil than my friends are. They're probably decent to their kids, love their wives, and so on. We'd probably get along if we met at an airport bar. I'm sure their leaders tell them how evil the USMC is.

Good and Evil is just trying to paint your side as moral and the other as immoral so you don't have to feel bad about killing them. Be honest, realize that we're all flawed, and sometimes a guy is a threat to you and yours, and he has to go.

But don't believe for a second that you are fighting alongside the saints, removing evil from the world.

hamishspence
2009-12-24, 05:32 PM
Deciding that no act can be classified as evil though- and that all morality is based on "society" is problematic at best.

"you hurt society- society should punish you"- but what if its the society that's in the wrong?

Mike_G
2009-12-24, 05:37 PM
So he's being evil because he enjoys being evil. I'm glad we are in agreement.

I don't think you should list "vote democrat" as a nice thing on a forum that discourages political discussions. Otherwise, yes, bad people can do good things and visa versa. I never disagreed with that notion.

Yes, enemies often demonize one another. Granted. This does not mean that the entire concept of evil is useless and exists only to further the goals of those in power. Worshiping the "wrong" god isn't evil. Tyranny is. Torture is. Genocide is. They should be stopped, even if only for the sake of stopping them.

And we have quite the difficult time agreeing on what exactly torture or tyranny are. Some hardline Libertarians would consider the existence of the DEA or IRS or national health care as tyranny. Lot's of respected officials recently tried to defend torture, or classify doing bad things to prisoners as "not really torture," but "enhanced interrogation." I'm sure they felt they were doing Goood, and only "enhancing" the interrogation of "evil" people.

Don't get me wrong. There are despicable things that people do. I'll go so far as saying some actions can be classified as Evil. I draw the line at calling a person Evil, though. Deluded, dangerous, destructive, a threat, sure.

I'm not a big fan of drawing moral lines in the sand and putting some people on either side. That never ends well.


Deciding that no act can be classified as evil though- and that all morality is based on "society" is problematic at best.


I'm willing to classify actions as wrong, damaging and even unacceptable.

The word "Evil" carries too much sanctimonious baggage, too much self-congratulation for stopping the perpetrator.




"you hurt society- society should punish you"- but what if its the society that's in the wrong?

What "good" actions hurt society?

This kind of thinking leads to dangerous fanatics who have decided society is wrong, so they blow up a building.

If you are convince society is "wrong," you can probably work to change it without actively hurting society.

erikun
2009-12-24, 05:41 PM
I simply assume people are assssholes because of sites like 4chan and the GIFT, that once people know there will be no consequences for their actions their true nature shows. I can't play Modern Warfare 2 without people calling other people racial slurs every 2 minutes.
This is where we do need to start comparing definitions of evil, then. Because jackass does not imply evil, at least by my definition. Being a jackass is being unpleasant, but it doesn't mean going around and doing evil things to people.

The silver-tongued psycho murderer can sweet talk you into dinner at his place, drug you, cut of your head and mutilate your corpse. At no point is he acting mean, disrespectful, or in any way "jerkish", but his actions are undenyably evil. Conversely, an old man can yell at kids to get off his lawn all day, and freely insult people directly to their face. Yet that same man can build orphanages and fund hospitals. He is certainly very unpleasant to be around, but it is undenyable that he goes around doing good, and simply insulting people is not considered evil.

hamishspence
2009-12-24, 05:42 PM
Champions of Ruin defined an evil being as one who is consistantly and routinely doing evil acts (whatever their motives)

a Well Intentioned Extremist who tortures all suspects, in the hope of ensuring society is protected, might qualify.

Samb
2009-12-24, 05:43 PM
Deciding that no act can be classified as evil though- and that all morality is based on "society" is problematic at best.

"you hurt society- society should punish you"- but what if its the society that's in the wrong?

Took the words right out of my mouth.

Labeling someone as evil is not labeling them sub-human. Evil is a type of belief that humans endorse, just like being good. They are not mutually exclusive. And more often than not evil people don't rock the boat nearly as much a evil PCs do.

I'm trying to keep this more about RPG'ing evil rather than the nature of morality, which I personally think is a universal concept (for humans at least). While the nature of morality is fascinating I just don't want to drag this into a relativism debate.

hamishspence
2009-12-24, 05:44 PM
What "good" actions hurt society?

This kind of thinking leads to dangerous fanatics who have decided society is wrong, so they blow up a building.

If you are convince society is "wrong," you can probably work to change it without actively hurting society.


Helping rescue people from slavery undermines the society for which it is a way of life, for a simple example.



Don't get me wrong. There are despicable things that people do. I'll go so far as saying some actions can be classified as Evil.


I'm willing to classify actions as wrong, damaging and even unacceptable.

The word "Evil" carries too much sanctimonious baggage, too much self-congratulation for stopping the perpetrator.

This pairing seems strange- first "some actions can be classified as evil" then "the word Evil carries too much baggage"

Samb
2009-12-24, 05:47 PM
This is where we do need to start comparing definitions of evil, then. Because jackass does not imply evil, at least by my definition. Being a jackass is being unpleasant, but it doesn't mean going around and doing evil things to people.

The silver-tongued psycho murderer can sweet talk you into dinner at his place, drug you, cut of your head and mutilate your corpse. At no point is he acting mean, disrespectful, or in any way "jerkish", but his actions are undenyably evil. Conversely, an old man can yell at kids to get off his lawn all day, and freely insult people directly to their face. Yet that same man can build orphanages and fund hospitals. He is certainly very unpleasant to be around, but it is undenyable that he goes around doing good, and simply insulting people is not considered evil.
Agreed.
My example about 4chan and GIFT were more "tip of the iceburg" type. Most people are not overtly racist or nasty nowadays, but online?

It makes me think racism is still a prominent part of this country's psyche, which is depressing as hell considering we just elected a black president.

Mike_G
2009-12-24, 05:59 PM
This pairing seems strange- first "some actions can be classified as evil" then "the word Evil carries too much baggage"


It does carry too much baggage.

It's like "fascist."

You want to really demonize your enemy, call him a fascist, whether he's even remotely fascist, as Websters would define it.

"Evil" gets dragged out too quickly, both in game and RL. It puts your enemy in a different category, and allows you greater leeway to act like a jerk to him.

Nobody tried to justify maltreatment of prisoners in other wars, (stuff happened, but nobody tried to excuse or justify it) but labelling the enemy "evildoers" opened the door.

This is gonna get political any minute now, so we may want to back away and agree to disagree.

I don't see how I can argue this without getting into real world conflicts.

hamishspence
2009-12-24, 06:04 PM
Maybe- the trope "Pay Evil Unto Evil" is a pretty fair example of how some people tend to take an

"if the person is bad, certain acts against them become justified"

attitude.

the countering version is "two wrongs don't make a right"- just because you're dealing with people who do horrible things, does not suddenly justify doing horrible things back.

But, these days, most people agree, that certain things are horrible- torture, rape, slavery, etc. Some people will justify them as "retribution" others won't.

Mike_G
2009-12-24, 06:17 PM
Maybe- the trope "Pay Evil Unto Evil" is a pretty fair example of how some people tend to take an

"if the person is bad, certain acts against them become justified"

attitude.

the countering version is "two wrongs don't make a right"- just because you're dealing with people who do horrible things, does not suddenly justify doing horrible things back.


It does make it easier though, and more likely. It's irresponsible to call the enemy Evil, because that opens some floodgates in the mind of the stressed, scared, exhausted heavily armed 18 year old who is likely to encounter that enemy.

"He is evil. He does evil. He is a footsolider in the army of the Axis of Evil. But treat him with compassion if he surrenders."

Does that sound likely to you?

"Anybody who poses a threat to my Marines will be neutralized. You will shoot straighter, hit harder and fight smarter. Do you read me?"

That would get a "Sir, yes sir!" and not seem to contradict an admonition on obeying the law of war or respecting the Geneva convention or winning hearts an minds.

Don't use words that fit the Crusades, unless you want your men to act like Crusaders.



But, these days, most people agree, that certain things are horrible- torture, rape, slavery, etc. Some people will justify them as "retribution" others won't.

Fine. They are all those things.

But saying "they did some horrible things" is less likely to result in attrocities by your audience than "they are evil."

Yukitsu
2009-12-24, 07:31 PM
You may also not be an average player. :smallbiggrin:

Evidently. Even having said I'm the party's evil member openly and often, the other party members have noted that I'm usually the one laying my life on the line for others. So much so that I work with two paladins*. :smallcool:

*Immunity to divinations goes a long way to casting yourself as a good guy when you're evil.

Tiktakkat
2009-12-24, 08:02 PM
Why don't people get this? Is it because many gamers don't see all the grey between good and evil?

No, it is because fantasy role-playing is about expressing wishes and desires, not concealing them.
As such, once you take the step to playing an Evil character, you are obviously going to focus on doing all those nasty things, and not on trying to fit in while doing them.


Or are we all a bunch of Neitze wanna-be's and nilism is in vogue?

Nihilism is very much in vogue, but if they were Nietzsche wanna-bes, they would be doing the exact opposite. Nietzsche's entire philosophy was formed in direct opposition to nihilism, not in support of it.


I think reading too much Conrad, Lord of the Flies and Clockwork Orange has disillusioned me.

So I am guessing you never read the original version of A Clockwork Orange with the 21st chapter, where Alex becomes a productive member of society.
And you never noticed that some kids simply did not give into their baser urges in Lord of the Flies.
As for Conrad . . . well, yeah, he is just plain depressing.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-12-24, 11:45 PM
If a player expresses a desire to be an evil character, the player usually means dramatically/comically exaggerated evil. If the player just wanted to be selfish and manipulative, (s)he probably would have written neutral on the character sheet, because people don't like calling characters they empathize with Evil.

Tiktakkat
2009-12-24, 11:58 PM
If a player expresses a desire to be an evil character, the player usually means dramatically/comically exaggerated evil. If the player just wanted to be selfish and manipulative, (s)he probably would have written neutral on the character sheet, because people don't like calling characters they empathize with Evil.

From what I have seen, it is more typical such players do not want their particular "diversions into license and excess" labeled as "Evil", even within the structure of the game.

Samb
2009-12-25, 12:19 AM
No, it is because fantasy role-playing is about expressing wishes and desires, not concealing them.
As such, once you take the step to playing an Evil character, you are obviously going to focus on doing all those nasty things, and not on trying to fit in while doing them.
Good point, but I was referring to the evil PCs in a party of not so evil people. Like Rasilin and the heroes of the Lance. He wasn't causing too much trouble for his party, in fact he was a great resource.




So I am guessing you never read the original version of A Clockwork Orange with the 21st chapter, where Alex becomes a productive member of society.
And you never noticed that some kids simply did not give into their baser urges in Lord of the Flies.
As for Conrad . . . well, yeah, he is just plain depressing.

I did read the original Clockwork Orange and I agreed with the editor, Burrgess copped out. Sociopaths don't "convert" once they hit 21. They get better at hiding it, that's all. Alex had no remorse at all, and like ultraviolence, and the old "in-out". Not only does it have disturbing implications it's just not believable. Honestly ruined the book for me.

"Oh, I was cured alright" was the perfect in-character response to end the novel.

Some kids didn't get nutty, but most of them ended up being bullied into the activities anyway. And Conrad..... well he's a good writer, because he depresses the hell out of me. No book should have control of my emotions like that.

Tiktakkat
2009-12-25, 12:46 AM
Good point, but I was referring to the evil PCs in a party of not so evil people. Like Rasilin and the heroes of the Lance. He wasn't causing too much trouble for his party, in fact he was a great resource.

Most players are unable to manage being Evil in that manner, for reasons noted above.
As for Dragonlance in particular, it suffers significantly from the intent of the authors to force the game as a moral lesson.


I did read the original Clockwork Orange and I agreed with the editor, Burrgess copped out. Sociopaths don't "convert" once they hit 21. They get better at hiding it, that's all. Alex had no remorse at all, and like ultraviolence, and the old "in-out". Not only does it have disturbing implications it's just not believable. Honestly ruined the book for me.

The editor is wrong.
There is nothing outrageous about such a moral evolution in a character, particularly in fiction of that type, and particularly when involving a character of such an age.
Further, removing it removes a significant amount of the underlying social commentary about the rebelliousness of youth and the methods used by society to try and socialize them.


"Oh, I was cured alright" was the perfect in-character response to end the novel.

Only if you want a nihilistic story and not an evolutionary story.


Some kids didn't get nutty, but most of them ended up being bullied into the activities anyway.

Again, that is why the last chapter is so relevant.


And Conrad..... well he's a good writer, because he depresses the hell out of me. No book should have control of my emotions like that.

That is the point of stories like that - to control emotion and use it to convey a point of view.
As for being depressing, Conrad wrote about people undergoing tests. If the tests are not onerous, they are not really testing anything. The question is whether you persevere or not. It can be difficult to read such as a result, but ultimately the same test is passed onto you.

Samb
2009-12-25, 01:10 AM
Most players are unable to manage being Evil in that manner, for reasons noted above.
As for Dragonlance in particular, it suffers significantly from the intent of the authors to force the game as a moral lesson.
Not saying Dragonlance wasn't anvil dropping, but it was a good example of being an evil teammate that isn't disruptive.



The editor is wrong.
There is nothing outrageous about such a moral evolution in a character, particularly in fiction of that type, and particularly when involving a character of such an age.
Further, removing it removes a significant amount of the underlying social commentary about the rebelliousness of youth and the methods used by society to try and socialize them.
Hmm I had this same conversation with my sister and she said the same thing. My thing was that doing this all in one chapter broke my suspension of disbelief. I would have liked Alex to reform, but it just felt rushed. It also makes you wonder if the only reason Alex did reform was because he developed empathy for his victims when he himself was a victim...... which invalidates a lot of the moral issues that Burgess was trying present.




Only if you want a nihilistic story and not an evolutionary story.

I wouldn't say that. It deals with the issue of free will and morality. Is forced goodness is really better than chosen wickedness? I would still agree with Burgess and say no.



That is the point of stories like that - to control emotion and use it to convey a point of view.
As for being depressing, Conrad wrote about people undergoing tests. If the tests are not onerous, they are not really testing anything. The question is whether you persevere or not. It can be difficult to read such as a result, but ultimately the same test is passed onto you.

I often use Heart of Darkness to remind myself not to be a bastard. The Bible works too but Conrad seems to be more relatable.

Tiktakkat
2009-12-25, 12:44 PM
Not saying Dragonlance wasn't anvil dropping, but it was a good example of being an evil teammate that isn't disruptive.

Except Raistlin was not Evil until far into the story, and even then he was "forced" to be Evil by the rather non-standard definitions of the authors. He thus becomes a less than perfect example.


Hmm I had this same conversation with my sister and she said the same thing. My thing was that doing this all in one chapter broke my suspension of disbelief. I would have liked Alex to reform, but it just felt rushed. It also makes you wonder if the only reason Alex did reform was because he developed empathy for his victims when he himself was a victim...... which invalidates a lot of the moral issues that Burgess was trying present.

You can wonder at it, but the text is pretty clear otherwise. He simply saw a different way, and very much "grew up".
Is it a complete change for an otherwise unsocialized punk? Yes, that is part of the point.
Was it sudden? Yes, again that is part of the point.
Together they contrast very starkly with the attempted forced transformation, completing the whole image.


I wouldn't say that. It deals with the issue of free will and morality. Is forced goodness is really better than chosen wickedness? I would still agree with Burgess and say no.

Naturally, but that is why the final chapter is required. Without the final transformation, we have nothing but an evil child, wallowing in evil, enabled by corrupt adults.
Great if you goal is proclaiming nihilistic self-destruction, not so great if you actually want to communicate something more.

In many ways it winds up like another story Stanley Kubrick was involved in where the "final chapter" was not used - The Shining.
Kubrick's film is indeed terrifying, but by not using the actual ending it winds up just a bit less than the novel, even though the novel offered no attempt at a profound moral lesson. It cuts off with the typical Hollywood cop-out attempt to hint at a sequel, and let us be thankful we never had to deal with "The Shining XI - Jack's Back Again!", completely abandoning the cathartic release of the actual ending.

Riffington
2009-12-25, 03:19 PM
Except Raistlin was not Evil until far into the story, and even then he was "forced" to be Evil by the rather non-standard definitions of the authors.
What?? He was textbook LE (playing well with the good guys) from fairly early on. Considering his brother an "expendable but valuable resource" shoulda been your first clue.


What "good" actions hurt society?


Sabotaging our nukes.
Smuggling.
Saving the lives of old sick people.

Mike_G
2009-12-25, 03:35 PM
Sabotaging our nukes.
Smuggling.


Not sure either of these qualify as good.



Saving the lives of old sick people.

As that's my day job, it's nice to know I'm hurting society.

Saph
2009-12-25, 03:36 PM
I actually don't believe in Evil.

I don't think I believe in your not believing in it. :P

Pretty much everyone has some concept of good and evil in my experience. They just call it different things. People who really don't believe in good and evil - who really do think that morals are nothing more than social conventions - are rare, and they usually don't advertise themselves.

Tiktakkat
2009-12-25, 03:39 PM
What?? He was textbook LE (playing well with the good guys) from fairly early on. Considering his brother an "expendable but valuable resource" shoulda been your first clue.

Is that why he was a red robe until . . . when was it, late in the second book? Soon after which he disappeared to "join the bad guys" because he had too since he was now openly Evil, and so of course could not be allowed to hang out with the Good guys, where he had been openly harassed for being Neutral and not Good in the first place.
And his "final" choice to be Evil was made . . . when he was kneeling over his brother's fallen body, trying to desperately think up a way to save him?

So no, Raistlin is not a good example of a "social" Evil PC working with other PCs, including Good ones.

Roderick_BR
2009-12-25, 05:39 PM
I avoid that whole thing by not allowing evil PC to begin with.

"Real world politics"? Did I say anything about Republicans or Democrats, or anything even remotely involving politics? This isn't a political statement, I'm not trying to get your vote, nor am I up for any award so no politics here.

How's that for a disclaimer?
You know, "politics" doesn't mean only *that* kind of politics.

Mike_G
2009-12-25, 05:51 PM
I don't think I believe in your not believing in it. :P

Pretty much everyone has some concept of good and evil in my experience. They just call it different things. People who really don't believe in good and evil - who really do think that morals are nothing more than social conventions - are rare, and they usually don't advertise themselves.

I'm apparently not explaining myself well.

I don't consider morals to be simple social conventions. I believe in right and wrong, and in treating people the way you would prefer to be treated.

I dislike the label "evil" since, in my experience, applying it is too often the first step in justifying treating someone as less than human.

This is typified in D&D by the "smite on sight" syndrome. It's easy enough to find examples in real life too, just not without treading on dangerous ground in a forum that tries not to get political.

Devils_Advocate
2009-12-25, 06:28 PM
Let me interject my opinion on an important issue here:

Wanting to help innocents is Good motivation.
Wanting to hurt innocents is Evil motivation.
Not caring about others one way or the other is Neutral.

Deliberately helping innocents is Good action.
Deliberately hurting innocents is Evil action.
Avoiding affecting others one way or the other is Neutral.

And so on.

The whole "evil is the absence of good (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privatio_boni)" perspective is frankly absurd, because sadism is plainly worse than mere indifference, actively harming innocents is plainly worse than mere inaction, etc. Neither Good nor Evil is the lack of the other. Rather, Evil is anti-Good and Good is anti-Evil.

And D&D acknowledges this. Rather than a straight-up black-and-white Good/Evil dichotomy, it uses a black-gray-and-white Good/Neutral/Evil trichotomy. Dungeons & Dragons does not lump someone who simply doesn't care about you and doesn't do anything for you in with someone who wants to make you scream in pain and tries to shove a fork up your nose. And rightly so, because those aren't the same thing at all.

This is a point that the alignment system is actually entirely sensible on. So far as this issue is concerned, it categorizes things in the appropriate fashion. It basically gives the right answer here.

To think that some might casually discard one of the points of clear sensibility in the alignment system as it's officially formulated makes me a sad panda. :smallfrown:

Riffington
2009-12-25, 08:46 PM
The whole "evil is the absence of good (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privatio_boni)" perspective is frankly absurd, because sadism is plainly worse than mere indifference, actively harming innocents is plainly worse than mere inaction, etc.

Actually you just misunderstand it. The notion would be that humans are naturally predisposed to want to help others; sadism would be a lack of that natural desire/predisposition, as would indifference. Both those Evil attitudes (indifference to or liking of suffering) would be a deficiency in the natural state (not liking suffering). A Neutral person dislikes suffering, but might have Laziness sufficient to not do much about it.


Not sure either of these qualify as good.

They can be (though obviously it depends on your motivations, like any act).
If you believe "no nuclear attack can be justified, it's better people not die horribly en masse", that's a very reasonable belief that I happen to disagree with, and if you act on that to sabotage nukes, that's a Good act. It may end up doing more harm than help, and probably does.

If you notice that someone wants a thing, and you figure out how to get it for them (at all, or just more cheaply), you are doing Good. You are circumventing the government's rules, and depending on the object in question that may or may not be harming society. But it should be obviously Good.


As that's my day job, it's nice to know I'm hurting society.
Mine too, frequently. But it's clearly harmful to society to have all those expensive procedures just to prolong a life a brief period, so they can just
have more expensive procedures done. Good, but not so helpful to society's functioning.

Devils_Advocate
2009-12-25, 09:56 PM
The notion would be that humans are naturally predisposed to want to help others; sadism would be a lack of that natural desire/predisposition, as would indifference. Both those Evil attitudes (indifference to or liking of suffering) would be a deficiency in the natural state (not liking suffering).
But sadism isn't just the absence of compassion, it's the presence of its opposite. Pure selfishness -- simply not caring about others one way or the other -- is the absence of both. Indifference to suffering is no more the same thing as liking suffering than it is the same thing as disliking suffering. That was my whole point.

Riffington
2009-12-25, 10:16 PM
But sadism isn't just the absence of compassion, it's the presence of its opposite. Pure selfishness -- simply not caring about others one way or the other -- is the absence of both. Indifference to suffering is no more the same thing as liking suffering than it is the same thing as disliking suffering. That was my whole point.

Ok, but that's not a full argument. Seducing a child is not nearly as bad as forcing oneself on a child and then murdering her. But it's nevertheless possible/true that while the latter is worse, both are Evil. Similarly, sadism and pure selfishness may both be evil. Sadism is, like indifference, the absence of compassion. Indifference is that plus laziness; Sadism is that plus joy in suffering.

Coidzor
2009-12-25, 10:55 PM
If you notice that someone wants a thing, and you figure out how to get it for them (at all, or just more cheaply), you are doing Good. You are circumventing the government's rules, and depending on the object in question that may or may not be harming society. But it should be obviously Good.

Yes, because bringing pleasure to the people willing to pay for one's services is Good, even if one is trafficking in slaves or illegal drugs which harm society by having the various criminal groups killing in the streets over control of distribution or which out and out kill people due to being used in inappropriate contexts...

Honestly, smuggling is a loaded word and you would've been better served by picking better examples.

sonofzeal
2009-12-25, 11:04 PM
Zeal's 5-point scale

Exalted: "I am a good person!"
Good: "I try to be a good person."
Neutral: "I'd like to be good person but it's inconvenient sometimes." (Or, "I'm alright.")
Evil: "I don't care about being a good person."
Vile: "GO TEAM EVIL!"

Devils_Advocate
2009-12-25, 11:10 PM
Sadism is, like indifference, the absence of compassion.
No, it's the opposite of compassion.

Conceivably someone could be both sadistic and compassionate and feel very conflicted.


Indifference is that plus laziness
No, it isn't. One can be indifferent to the suffering of others but still willing to work hard for oneself.

Indifference to suffering is what you get if you take out all disliking of suffering and all liking of suffering and don't replace them with anything else. It's the option that can only be defined as a lack of other things. I regard all such options as Neutral.

Ormur
2009-12-25, 11:17 PM
They can be (though obviously it depends on your motivations, like any act). If you believe "no nuclear attack can be justified, it's better people not die horribly en masse", that's a very reasonable belief that I happen to disagree with, and if you act on that to sabotage nukes, that's a Good act. It may end up doing more harm than help, and probably does.

I'm sure people can do harm with good intentions. Generally you should be judged by your actions but not intent. Burning down an orphanage isn't good even if someone deludes themselves it is. However disabling nukes could have good consequences. If it's used but doesn't go off you might have saved the lives of hundreds of thousands but there are other consequences possible. It might increase the likelihood of nuclear war if it's a deterrence (if it's the only nuke a country has). It's really situational. That's the problem with alignments, you can't immediately determine if an action has good consequences or not. People should have though carefully about the possible ramifications of their actions before acting if they are meddling with sensitive matters and want to do good. A clearer example would be from a superhero comic I once read where one superhero disabled every country's nuclear arsenal but always left one functioning to serve as a deterrence. Was that a good act that was harmful to society?


If you notice that someone wants a thing, and you figure out how to get it for them (at all, or just more cheaply), you are doing Good. You are circumventing the government's rules, and depending on the object in question that may or may not be harming society. But it should be obviously Good.

I'm not sure most smugglers smuggle for altruistic reasons (not that it matters). However most items smuggled are contraband, usually because it harms people or society in some way. I wouldn't say the laws of supply and demand are good. Filling a demand isn't automatically good, working in retail by itself doesn't make you good. There may be a demand for narcotics but filling it and turning people into addicts isn't good.
Even if the product smuggled isn't harmful your still refusing society a portion of the product's price that has been agreed upon and that may be harmful. Roads and orphanages may not be built because of smuggling. I'm presupposing smuggling in a society that has a legitimate, preferably democratic, government otherwise there could be good examples. Smuggling vital medicine to a dictatorships that forbids them may be good just as smuggling heroin may be evil. I'm just pointing out that meeting demand and smuggling isn't obviously good.


Mine too, frequently. But it's clearly harmful to society to have all those expensive procedures just to prolong a life a brief period, so they can just have more expensive procedures done. Good, but not so helpful to society's functioning.

The old people whose life you're prolonging are also a part of society. There can be a limit you cross where helping them more is past usefulness but if curing them truly adds to their happiness (prolong life that can be enjoyed) then it's a benefit to society. The resources spent on curing them are also either paid for by the people receiving care or dealt out by society according to criteria that have been agreed upon.
Since we don't leave old people to die on icebergs we must ascribe a value to prolonging their life, probably because we care about them and expect the same for ourselves when we grow old.

Riffington
2009-12-26, 12:05 AM
No, it's the opposite of compassion.

Conceivably someone could be both sadistic and compassionate and feel very conflicted.


No, it isn't. One can be indifferent to the suffering of others but still willing to work hard for oneself.

Indifference to suffering is what you get if you take out all disliking of suffering and all liking of suffering and don't replace them with anything else. It's the option that can only be defined as a lack of other things. I regard all such options as Neutral.

Allow me to give you an analogy of your position so that you understand that you must readjust your thinking.
Lawful Good: you respect others' property, and do not take what isn't yours.
Chaotic/evil by book: you are willing to take others' stuff because you want it.
But that's just neutral by your theory: chaotic/evil would require you to figure out who owns something and then actually go out and give it specifically to someone who doesn't own it. Just to change it up.

In fact, indifference to something that *ought* to be a consideration is chaotic or evil, depending whether the "ought" is good or lawful.

to those responding to smuggling: it is not my claim that all smuggling is good. Just that it easily can be Good/done for good reasons, while still being harmful to society as a whole.

Devils_Advocate
2009-12-26, 12:28 AM
Allow me to give you an analogy of your position so that you understand that you must readjust your thinking.
Lawful Good: you respect others' property, and do not take what isn't yours.
Chaotic/evil by book: you are willing to take others' stuff because you want it.
But that's just neutral by your theory: chaotic/evil would require you to figure out who owns something and then actually go out and give it specifically to someone who doesn't own it. Just to change it up.
Per my standards:

Wanting someone to retain his rightful property is a Lawful motivation.
Wanting someone to lose his rightful property is a Chaotic motivation.
Not caring what happens to someone's property is Neutral.

Protecting someone's rightful property is a Lawful act.
Stealing someone's rightful property is a Chaotic act.
Staying away from a conflict between a thief and a guard because you don't want to get hurt is a Neutral act.

sonofzeal
2009-12-26, 01:17 AM
Per my standards:

Wanting someone to retain his rightful property is a Lawful motivation.
Wanting someone to lose his rightful property is a Chaotic motivation.
Not caring what happens to someone's property is Neutral.

Protecting someone's rightful property is a Lawful act.
Stealing someone's rightful property is a Chaotic act.
Staying away from a conflict between a thief and a guard because you don't want to get hurt is a Neutral act.
That just seems odd to me. If someone's deliberately setting out to rob people, for the sheer purpose of robbing them, I'd call that guy an utter bastard and have no issues labeling him Vile under my system (see above), or Evil under the regular one.

Law/Chaos to me is about how whimsical you are, or about how consistent you are from day to day, or how much you care about rules simply because they're rules. Chaos, IMO, is about change, growth, adaptiveness, unpredictability, whimsy, and a disregard for tradition or "the rules". Law is about consistency, order stability, reliability, level-headedness, and an appreciation for tradition and "the rules". I have a five-point scale here too....

Axiomatic: "I AM THE LAW"
Lawful: "I am a shoemaker, as my father and his father before him."
Neutral: "You know, sometimes I just feel like getting away from it all, but I've got Molly to care for and all these bills..."
Chaotic: "Chill, dude.... it's like, no big deal... Hakuna Mutata, y'know?"
Anarchic: "Ooo, bicycle!"

Satyr
2009-12-26, 03:20 AM
Isn't it more so that the alignment system is an oversimplification which doesn't even cope with the issues of the usual roleplaying game and is generally more a hindrance than a boon by using empty yet placative phrases?
Why does anyone wants to project this terribly faulty system to something a lot more complex than a game, e.g. real life, and think that it xould work in any way?

I have a hard time to take anyone serious who use terms like "good" and "evil" in a real moral debate, taking themselves serious. These terms are just loaded, bloated, oversimplified concepts who completely lack the mandatory differentiation and complexity to deal with the issue.
It may work for kids, to offer simple answers for complex questions (and any question of ethics, morality, etc. is complex by nature), but for a mature person who actively try to think, this cannot, may not be good enough. There are no simple answers.

hamishspence
2009-12-26, 01:46 PM
Per my standards:

Wanting someone to retain his rightful property is a Lawful motivation.
Wanting someone to lose his rightful property is a Chaotic motivation.
Not caring what happens to someone's property is Neutral.

Protecting someone's rightful property is a Lawful act.
Stealing someone's rightful property is a Chaotic act.
Staying away from a conflict between a thief and a guard because you don't want to get hurt is a Neutral act.


Very, very inconsistant with D&D (and a number of other moral perspectives)

The whole point of so-called "justified theft" is that the victim's property wasn't exactly rightful in the first place, but extracted by force, for the purpose of self-aggrandizement. Robbing a tax collector who is lining his pockets is considered justifiable in Robin Hood-type stories. Robbing a person whose property was not obtained in such ways, isn't.

Good people respect personal property. Not just Lawful people.

A Chaotic Good thief, is somewhat who steals property that isn't exactly the "rightful property" of the victim, but obtained by nefarious means.

Evil is about causing harm, physical, emotional, or otherwise. A person whose property has been stolen, has been harmed.

Whether the terms are "evil and good" or "morally correct and morally wrong" these terms are used, a lot, in moral philosophy.

Philosophies which reject the notion that an act can be morally wrong or morally right are usually a long way out of mainstream thought.

Riffington
2009-12-26, 01:55 PM
Per my standards:

Wanting someone to retain his rightful property is a Lawful motivation.
Wanting someone to lose his rightful property is a Chaotic motivation.
Not caring what happens to someone's property is Neutral.

Protecting someone's rightful property is a Lawful act.
Stealing someone's rightful property is a Chaotic act.
Staying away from a conflict between a thief and a guard because you don't want to get hurt is a Neutral act.
Wait, let me clarify:
So if I would "rather" you keep your rightful property (all else being equal) - but that value is worth less to me than the value of your property - so I steal it. (ie: mine>owner's>anyone else's) does that count as Lawful (since I do want you to retain your rightful property, just not as much as I want it myself) or Chaotic (since I obviously did just steal it). I obviously would call it chaotic, but what exactly are you saying?

Similarly: if I want someone (all else being equal) to do well, but I'm willing to hurt them for a fee, I'd call that equal; are you calling that good?




I have a hard time to take anyone serious who use terms like "good" and "evil" in a real moral debate, taking themselves serious. These terms are just loaded, bloated, oversimplified concepts who completely lack the mandatory differentiation and complexity to deal with the issue.
It may work for kids, to offer simple answers for complex questions (and any question of ethics, morality, etc. is complex by nature), but for a mature person who actively try to think, this cannot, may not be good enough. There are no simple answers.
Really? None? You can't think of anything you'd be willing to call evil?

Satyr
2009-12-26, 02:05 PM
No, not simply evil. There are people I can strongly disagree with, and there are actions i can see as morally disgusting; but "evil" alonme is a too plump, and childish term to debate moral issues. These questons usually require a differentiated and refined argumentation and simple terms of good and evil are just not sufficient to cope with any of these issues.

hamishspence
2009-12-26, 02:11 PM
The point is, what you call "morally disgusting" others call:

"an act of evil in a D&D context"

or even:

"an evil act in a normal context"

Just how much of a difference in terminology, is there between "morally disgusting behaviour" and "evil behaviour"?

Though, there is the "just because it is morally disgusting to me, doesn't mean that my views are right" perspective.

Which, while something to think about, misses the point that people define acts with respect to a "normal" baseline-

if a "normal society of people" would tend to define an act as "morally disgusting"- then the fact that a few people in the society don't define it that way, doesn't mean much, because they are abnormal.

But then, what's a "normal society of people"?

One that abides by the very few moral rules that have tended to remain the same, from when the first civilizations began, right up to the present day.

Mike_G
2009-12-26, 03:01 PM
No, not simply evil. There are people I can strongly disagree with, and there are actions i can see as morally disgusting; but "evil" alonme is a too plump, and childish term to debate moral issues. These questons usually require a differentiated and refined argumentation and simple terms of good and evil are just not sufficient to cope with any of these issues.

This nicely encapsulates what I meant when I said I don't believe in "Evil."

hamishspence
2009-12-26, 04:30 PM
Not everyone thinks the terms "good" and "evil" are "childish" or

"not sufficient to cope with any of these issues".

Satyr
2009-12-26, 05:17 PM
The point is, what you call "morally disgusting" others call:

"an act of evil in a D&D context"

or even:

"an evil act in a normal context"

Just how much of a difference in terminology, is there between "morally disgusting behaviour" and "evil behaviour"?

Mostly because the terms of good and evil are absolute, and while i am a pretty nercicistic person, I don't believe that my personal ideas and customs to be absolute. Nor those of anyone else. Why should my - or your - ideas of ethics and morality be any better than those of most other people? And therefore it is plain necessary to use exact and differentiated terminology, because otherwise you will do nothign but remain superficial and achieve nothing similar to a dialogue or an exchange. Especially when you disagree with someone, it is plain necessary to use finely adjusted and exact arguments; {scrubbed}


Not everyone thinks the terms "good" and "evil" are "childish" or

"not sufficient to cope with any of these issues".

And, as the continuous existence of a flat earth society proves, not everyone deserves to be taken seriously.

hamishspence
2009-12-26, 05:29 PM
{scrubbed}

Just because somebody is using the term "evil" for "behaviour that most people find morally disgusting" does not make it "lackluster villification."

Like: "Present day Western civilization tends to define "Behaviour X" as evil behaviour"



And, as the continuous existence of a flat earth society proves, not everyone deserves to be taken seriously.

Also, comparing people who use the terms "good" and "evil" to the flat earth society is perhaps a bit inflammatory.

Riffington
2009-12-26, 05:30 PM
Mostly because the terms of good and evil are absolute, and while i am a pretty nercicistic person, I don't believe that my personal ideas and customs to be absolute. Nor those of anyone else. Why should my - or your - ideas of ethics and morality be any better than those of most other people?

And, as the continuous existence of a flat earth society proves, not everyone deserves to be taken seriously.

So I think your second point is an excellent disproof of your first. While I may not be exactly correct concerning questions of geography, there is an actual geography out there. Similarly, I may not be correct every time about what is good and evil, but that's just because I'm not awesome enough. Good and evil are out there.


And therefore it is plain necessary to use exact and differentiated terminology, because otherwise you will do nothign but remain superficial and achieve nothing similar to a dialogue or an exchange. Especially when you disagree with someone, it is plain necessary to use finely adjusted and exact arguments; throufg lackluster villification you only achieve two things: a) you look like a narrow-minded moron; b) you weaken your position by making it appear to be more stupid than it necessarily is.
Right, so the correct word for the correct thing. When talking about rape, murder, burglary, etc, it's necessary to use forceful words like "evil". When talking about cheating on a test, you would be using too forceful a word if you said "evil", and a more nuanced word would then be appropriate.

Samb
2009-12-26, 05:33 PM
{Scrubbed}

When I say evil, I mean just that, the people that bad to the bone. Yes, people do use evil as a label on others to justify their own sins. But they are the issue here. That is sematics and not the real issue. All would agree that serial killers are evil, tyrants and genocide THAT kind of evil. Not propaganda. Evil is only a leading or weighted label when it is not absolutly true (or sometimes outright false). That is not what I'm talking about and I feel that kind of talk should stop.

{Scrubbed}
Let's try to incorperate some RG'ing
How do DMs deal with people who rely on detect evil all the time? It is entirely Possible that an evil person isn't lying, or could be helpful. I tell my PCs that but they still assume evil=kill on sight. How can I get the PCs over this misconception?

randomhero00
2009-12-26, 05:34 PM
Indeed. When I roleplay evil characters I don't do stupid evil. It usually takes the other characters a long long time to figure out he's evil [though the people tend to have a good idea as with evil characters there's a lot more passing of notes to the DM >:)]. I do manipulation and make him seem good and nice where it would benefit him. Selfishness and ruthlessness is the name of the game, but not at the cost of being hunted down by paladins.

Roland St. Jude
2009-12-26, 05:35 PM
Sheriff of Moddingham: Please redirect this discussion away from real world politics or religion.

hamishspence
2009-12-26, 05:37 PM
Even when a justification is given, philosophers doing so would still use the term "evil"

For example, various normally criminal actions might be deemed a "necessary evil"- but the term "evil" would still be used.

Even consequentialist philosophers like Machiavelli used the word for the various methods of the ruthless leader concerned with the safety of his country- along the lines of "murder is evil, but if the consequences are good, it is excusable"

Jayngfet
2009-12-26, 05:39 PM
{Scrubbed}

When I say evil, I mean just that, the people that bad to the bone. Yes, people do use evil as a label on others to justify their own sins. But they are the issue here. That is sematics and not the real issue. All would agree that serial killers are evil, tyrants and genocide THAT kind of evil. Not propaganda. Evil is only a leading or weighted label when it is not absolutly true (or sometimes outright false). That is not what I'm talking about and I feel that kind of talk should stop.

{Scrubbed}


Let's try to incorperate some RG'ing
How do DMs deal with people who rely on detect evil all the time? It is entirely Possible that an evil person isn't lying, or could be helpful. I tell my PCs that but they still assume evil=kill on sight. How can I get the PCs over this misconception?

Make the badguy non evil or inherintly good. A Solar working with a Pit fiend as a red herring/puppet works. Have Evil people attempt to help them, after all they likley don't want the world to end either.

Add more mundane evil with more consequences. So the innkeeper beats his wife and kids, if you kill him you'll likely run into an angry mob.


Imagine the only inn miles around is run by a petty yet evil man, you're being attacked by celestials who think you're a danger to the universe, the local gren dragon is another target who wants to form an alliance so he can live to burn villages another day. That outta shake things up.

hamishspence
2009-12-26, 05:43 PM
Recommend deleting scrubbed parts of the quote.

One of the green dragons in Draconomicon runs a logging concern, and is a potential ally of the players against a bigger problem- extremist druids.

Eberron has the "evil innkeeper that doesn't actually deserve to die" example in the main Campaign setting book.

And Book of Exalted Deeds points out there are occasions when evil and good may team up against bigger problems- that doesn't mean turning a blind eye to actions committed by your allies, but it doesn't mean you can't make such alliances, either.

Jayngfet
2009-12-26, 05:46 PM
Make things given by evil people part of the loot you're supposed to give them wealth by level. If they smite, they fall behind. When a small hoard of goblins almost steamrolls them because they pissed off the chromatic dragon, evil wizard, or beholder lord.

Satyr
2009-12-26, 05:48 PM
Yeah, stupid me, that was a very unfortunate formulation, leading to the exact opposite of what I tried to want to achieve with the argumement, but probalby prooved very exactly what you achieve if you don't formulate your thoughts exaclty enough; and thus I myself appear as the narrrow-minded idiot.

hamishspence
2009-12-26, 06:13 PM
As long as other people's formulations of phrasing are not being called childish or simple, it shouldn't be a problem.

Some people take the view morality has "progressed" over time- with many of the things that wouldn't have caused the average citizen 2000 years ago to blink an eye, being condemned.

Others claim that its the reverse- morality has degraded.

Still others, that there is no such thing as morality to "progress" or "regress".

That said, from what I can tell, if someone speaks of "evil" or "immoral" behaviour- most people understand the meaning- that it is behaviour that causes an unusual amount of harm.

Similarly, most people understand the concept of harm IMO.

Mike_G
2009-12-26, 06:37 PM
Right, so the correct word for the correct thing. When talking about rape, murder, burglary, etc, it's necessary to use forceful words like "evil". When talking about cheating on a test, you would be using too forceful a word if you said "evil", and a more nuanced word would then be appropriate.

Here is where I'd like to split a hair to prove a point.

I can see using the term "evil" for rape, or (usually) for murder, but for burglary, I think it may be a bit strong. Theft is wrong in that you are taking someone's property, but I don't think it's in the same ballpark as rape, torture, murder, etc.

Cheating on a test you wouldn't call evil, but it's still taking credit that you don't rightly deserve, and the results of a test might give you a job or scholarship that someone else deserves more. How is this less bad than stealing the guy's stereo?

hamishspence
2009-12-26, 06:46 PM
In some philosophies, the term "evil" is used across the board, but with things like exam-cheating, small-time theft, being called "minor evil acts" or "petty evil acts"

others prefer to make a difference between "wrong acts" and "evil acts"

In the context of D&D, I'd say the former is valid- since cheating, betraying, stealing, etc are on the BoVD list. They probably wouldn't change a character's alignment if they are unusual,

but if they are the norm, this makes for the typical "mildly evil character" a la the "evil innkeeper"

In "I, Jedi" a character ask "Was I doing evil" when he recounts the story of how he once, when trying to teach an animal a trick, got angry and used the Force to compel the animal to perform it.

and the response was "yes, but on a scale from 1 to Destroying Alderaan, it was so minor it doesn't even rate a decimal point"

JonestheSpy
2009-12-26, 06:50 PM
Some people take the view morality has "progressed" over time- with many of the things that wouldn't have caused the average citizen 2000 years ago to blink an eye, being condemned.

Others claim that its the reverse- morality has degraded.

Still others, that there is no such thing as morality to "progress" or "regress".

That said, from what I can tell, if someone speaks of "evil" or "immoral" behaviour- most people understand the meaning- that it is behaviour that causes an unusual amount of harm.



Can't resist jumping in here. The foundations of pretty much all real morality (as opposed to societal taboos, etc that have nothing to do with helping or hurting people) were figured out quite a long time ago, with folks all over the world coming to the same conclusion: Treat others as you would have them treat you (often phrased as don't do to others what you don't want them to do to you). Most westerners know that concept as the Golden Rule, but it appears in recognizable form in pretty much every major ethical system we know about: Islam, Confucianism, Greek philosophy, etc, going back to the Ancient Egypt.

Based on that, one can only come to the conclusion that moral behaviour has increased as history has progressed, as we see more and more groups of people realizing the moral imperative of recognizing that the golen rule applies everyone, not just members of one's in-group. Even though there are plenty of people who act like complete bastards towards others, we can see that there has been real progress becasue of the decline of societies justifying such behaviour because the victims were different nationality, ethniucity, gender, etc. It still happens of course, but worldwide there's much less than there was a century or even fifty years ago.

Not much of this has to do with fantasy RPG's of course, but nether has much of this thread.

hamishspence
2009-12-26, 06:54 PM
That fits with my view in general, though you'll probably find plenty of people to dispute it.

on fantasy RPGs, BoED said, basically, its this kind of modern morality that is the standard, not what was considered normal in medieval times.

it said a lot of other things, many of which make sense in this context, some of which seem less well thought out.

Roland St. Jude
2009-12-26, 06:55 PM
Sheriff of Moddingham: This thread has almost nothing to do with RPGs and far too much to do with real world religion (and to a lesser degree politics). And just so that we're clear, the prohibition on religion/politics isn't limited to active prosthelytizing/campaigning nor things that would be immediately hostile or inflammatory. The subject bans are incredibly broad and prohibit even what you, personally, might think is innocuous or objective discussion of the subjects.

Thread locked.