RP: How can anyone be _Wise_ yet _Evil_?

[Firechanter]

Pretty much as it says on the tin. This has kinda been bugging me for years.

I can see how Evil Guys can be charismatic. I can see how they can be intelligent. Both are typical stables of movies, fiction literature etc.

But _Wisdom_ as I understand it automatically involves being not-evil. Maybe you can be neutral, as in "not interested in worldly matters" or suchlike. But _Evil_, especially in D&D, involves stuff like being willing to harm or sacrifice innocents for your personal gain. A _wise_ person would be above that. In short, a truly wise person would know not to be evil.

So... how can there even be Evil Clerics?

[GoatBoy]

Pretty much as it says on the tin. This has kinda been bugging me for years.

I can see how Evil Guys can be charismatic. I can see how they can be intelligent. Both are typical stables of movies, fiction literature etc.

But _Wisdom_ as I understand it automatically involves being not-evil. Maybe you can be neutral, as in "not interested in worldly matters" or suchlike. But _Evil_, especially in D&D, involves stuff like being willing to harm or sacrifice innocents for your personal gain. A _wise_ person would be above that. In short, a truly wise person would know not to be evil.

So... how can there even be Evil Clerics?

Wisdom refers to level-headedness, prudence, insight, and awareness, all of which work to the purpose of reaching one's goals. An evil person has goals, and they usually don't care about the feelings or safety of others when it comes time to attain those goals. In fact, some people in this world would argue that worrying or consideration towards others just makes things harder whenever you try to do anything.

[The Redwolf]

My guess is that evil is subjective. Depending on how wise you are you may or may not realize that you're evil and/or view what you're doing as evil. A lot of villains aren't just out there for personal gain, they think they're doing something positive in their own way, and specifically a cleric would believe that furthering the goals of their deity is a good idea, and would be wise from the things they learned in service to them. Not to mention bad guys with common sense, a good villain won't be cartoonishly evil, he'll be evil insofar as he has to, but will normally try not to broadcast it, unless doing so benefits him in some way, and wisdom in D and D normally seems to equate to common sense. I'd say any of those ways allow a wise villain.

[dascarletm]

I don't see how wisdom is associated with morality. A character can be perseptive, and have a lot of common-sense, yet still only care for his/herself. Wise=/= Moral.

[Alabenson]

Evil Intelligence is knowing the precise ritual that will allow you to destroy the peaceful kingdom that banished you.

Evil Wisdom is understanding that you probably shouldn’t perform said ritual while you’re standing in the estimated blast radius.

[SowZ]

Look at wisdom is associated with. Generally, it is associated with understanding whereas intelligence is associated with knowledge type smarts. Understanding as in awareness of your surroundings, (spot/listen,) understanding of people, (including manipulation and things like sense motive,) spiritual connection, (being aware of spiritual ties and ones soul does not mean being good. An evil person can understand the pull of both good and evil dieties.) Also, being able to predict the outcome of an action is associated with wisdom.

I see no reason why being insightful has to do with being good.

[dascarletm]

A greek definition of wisdom is what is probably meant by the OP (I assume.)

That isn't the DnD definition, however.

[erikun]

Like most other terms, D&D Wisdom means something different than traditional definitions. In D&D, Wisdom means observant and insightful. It is perfectly reasonable for someone who is very perceptive and self-aware to still be cruel and unreasonable.

[Firechanter]

Maybe I'm thinking too modern here. That's basically what the entire post-enlightenment philosophers are about: the message that you should be a good person not for fear of some invisible bogeyman who may send you to hell otherwise, but out of the _understanding_ that this is the right thing; the course of action that benefits everyone the most. And understanding is a key element of Wisdom.

Also, keep in mind that in D&D, Good and Evil are by no means subjective or a matter of interpretation. People typically worship a deity that fits their personal morality. If a Cleric of a Good deity performs Evil acts under the delusion he is being good, he'll soon learn the error of his ways the hard way.

[Eldan]

No, that is definitely not D&D wisdom. Where did you get that idea?

In D&D wisdom is pretty much just perception, insight and willpower. Nothing else.

[dascarletm]

Maybe I'm thinking too modern here. That's basically what the entire post-enlightenment philosophers are about: the message that you should be a good person not for fear of some invisible bogeyman who may send you to hell otherwise, but out of the _understanding_ that this is the right thing; the course of action that benefits everyone the most. And understanding is a key element of Wisdom.

Also, keep in mind that in D&D, Good and Evil are by no means subjective or a matter of interpretation. People typically worship a deity that fits their personal morality. If a Cleric of a Good deity performs Evil acts under the delusion he is being good, he'll soon learn the error of his ways the hard way.

You can know what actions help everyone the most and not care. You instead decide to do what helps you most. Evil Gods usually get followers because the followers hope to avoid their wrath or be rewarded by them.

[Felyndiira]

Maybe I'm thinking too modern here. That's basically what the entire post-enlightenment philosophers are about: the message that you should be a good person not for fear of some invisible bogeyman who may send you to hell otherwise, but out of the _understanding_ that this is the right thing; the course of action that benefits everyone the most. And understanding is a key element of Wisdom.

In terms of pure mathematical logic, the statements translate to the following:

Good people should only be good due to an understanding it's the right thing (ideally, good -> understanding).
High wisdom grants understanding (wisdom -> understanding).


This does not logically imply that wisdom grants goodness. Someone can also be evil and ideally understanding. If we were to flip the original statement to something along the lines of "People that understand the consequences of their actions should always be good (ideally, understanding -> good)", then we can say that ideally, wisdom -> good.

As it stands now, though, it's perfectly logical for someone to be evil and fully understanding of the consequences of their actions, but still choose to be evil for fun, profit, someone else, or some other reason.

[DarkestKnight]

Wisdom also represents instinct, and following your gut, which explains why animals have low int scores but decent or good wis scores.

IMHO the reason you don't see a lot of wise villains, is because they are the few villains that attempt to do things right (in terms of villainy). I think you could look at any story where the hero lost (excluding wild circumstance. no points for the proverbial "1" coming up.) To use an example, the villain from Casino Royal (newer one). That guy takes the time to set up and mess with Bond at every opportunity, and he nearly kills him, although the plot intervenes.

[RFLS]

Evil Intelligence is knowing the precise ritual that will allow you to destroy the peaceful kingdom that banished you.

Evil Wisdom is understanding that you probably shouldn’t perform said ritual while you’re standing in the estimated blast radius.

Best explanation I've ever seen of this xD


Wisdom also represents instinct, and following your gut, which explains why animals have low int scores but decent or good wis scores.

IMHO the reason you don't see a lot of wise villains, is because they are the few villains that attempt to do things right (in terms of villainy). I think you could look at any story where the hero lost (excluding wild circumstance. no points for the proverbial "1" coming up.) To use an example, the villain from Casino Royal (newer one). That guy takes the time to set up and mess with Bond at every opportunity, and he nearly kills him, although the plot intervenes.

If you're a batman fan, look at it this way- The Joker is intelligent, whereas ra's al ghul is wise. (Admittedly, he's also intelligent)

[Twilightwyrm]

I typically justify it as the person having exceptional intuition, perception, levelheadedness, will, etc. but perhaps nevertheless lacking in a truly enlightened view of reality. In the same way that, while charisma can denote physical beauty, a truly ugly person can still have a strong force of personality (see: Lichs, Devils, Mind Flayers, and probably Cthulhu). But yes, that has always bugged me as well, as, at least for human-minded creatures, evil always strikes me as somewhat of a defect in one's thinking (at least for any supporting an evil philosophy, as opposed to, say, the Macbeths of the world). But then again I have a non-subjective view of evil (as in evil not being subjective, not my view not being subjective).

[Slipperychicken]

I'll just post the game's definition of Wisdom (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/theBasics.htm#wisdomWis) here.


SRD; Wisdom (Wis)
Wisdom describes a character’s willpower, common sense, perception, and intuition. While Intelligence represents one’s ability to analyze information, Wisdom represents being in tune with and aware of one’s surroundings. Wisdom is the most important ability for clerics and druids, and it is also important for paladins and rangers. If you want your character to have acute senses, put a high score in Wisdom. Every creature has a Wisdom score.


This description has nothing to do with morality. What about the real-world use?


Oxford Dictionary Definition of wise
adjective
having or showing experience, knowledge, and good judgement


This doesn't have anything to do with morality, either. Evil people can have all these things and still be just as Evil, if not more so. Wise Evil just means you're able to make better decisions to further your dark, horrible goals.

Tl;Dr: Wisdom has nothing to do with morality. There is no contradiction, so you can rest at ease knowing that there are Wise men of every alignment.

[Gnorman]

If you're a batman fan, look at it this way- The Joker is intelligent, whereas ra's al ghul is wise. (Admittedly, he's also intelligent)

It may be more relevant to describe them in terms of which mental stat they are lacking: the Joker is intelligence and charismatic, but not very wise, while R'as al Ghul is intelligent and wise, but not charismatic.

A simplification, but manages to highlight just how the absence of those two function practically.

[Firechanter]

whereas ra's al ghul is wise.

Never heard the name. ^^

[Telonius]

It is somewhat difficult to give an example of a Wise Evil person. They tend to be the ones that don't get caught (unless under exceptional circumstances). They know when to split just before the cops show up. They know how to make somebody else be the fall guy. They know who would be an informer. They know when they're being lied to. They know when not to take a job.

[Asheram]

Pretty much as it says on the tin. This has kinda been bugging me for years.

I can see how Evil Guys can be charismatic. I can see how they can be intelligent. Both are typical stables of movies, fiction literature etc.

But _Wisdom_ as I understand it automatically involves being not-evil. Maybe you can be neutral, as in "not interested in worldly matters" or suchlike. But _Evil_, especially in D&D, involves stuff like being willing to harm or sacrifice innocents for your personal gain. A _wise_ person would be above that. In short, a truly wise person would know not to be evil.

So... how can there even be Evil Clerics?

Well... I suppose that a good example of Wise Evil could be explained in Watchmen, if you've seen the movie.

I believe that if Intelligence is the route to the goal, wisdom is the ability to see the goal in the first place.

A wise evil could be doing the wrong thing for the right cause so to speak, de-throwning an inept king or god because the coming threat is too great.

[RFLS]

It may be more relevant to describe them in terms of which mental stat they are lacking: the Joker is intelligence and charismatic, but not very wise, while R'as al Ghul is intelligent and wise, but not charismatic.

A simplification, but manages to highlight just how the absence of those two function practically.

True, but I was just focusing on Wisdom. Hmm....*rewatches Batman trilogy*


Never heard the name. ^^

Qui Gon Jinn's character in Batman Begins.

[NichG]

Here is an example of a 'wise' but Evil character (in the D&D sense of Evil at least):

Foraedis Vilya has seen nations rise and fall in his long life as an elf. He has seen ideals supposedly worth dying for be forgotten in the march of time. Over his long life he has learned that nothing persists, that people live and die and generally don't matter. He knows about the afterlife, and he has realized that even in the realms of the good, eventually even the souls of people are ground to dust, merged with the plane, and become nothing. In a very deep way, he is a nihilist when it comes to the world around him. Show him something of true permanence and he will respect it. But everything else is going to be destroyed anyhow, so if he can gain by hastening that destruction he has no compunctions against doing so. Furthermore, it is far easier to destroy than create, and when no creation survives the test of time then one might as well achieve their goals by destroying.

So, why do I say that this is in particular 'wise'? Well, this is a person who has very matter-of-factly observed the world around him and his relationship with it, and realized that he just doesn't care about all those things people lift up and declare to be important. Rather than be swept along by the beliefs or claims of others, he has found his true core and knows how to act with complete sincerity to himself. Unfortunately for the rest of the world, he found that his true core is only interested in his own comfort and condition, and so he ruthlessly acts along those lines. He isn't overtly psychotic or murderous - that would be stupid - but he has no compunctions about doing things that will harm others, as their suffering too will eventually be erased by the grinding of the world.

[BowStreetRunner]

This is how. (http://www.eviloverlord.com/lists/overlord.html)

[Felyndiira]

A wise person can also, in theory, be doing the wrong thing for the wrong cause as well.

Here's an example. Aya is an elf that has extended her own lifeline, and has now lived for over 400 years. She is a cleric; a woman that is wise beyond all means, is epic level, and is powerful beyond the dreams of even most veteran adventurers. If she wanted to, she could probably blink the sun out of existence with a single snap of her fingers.

However, with her long life came the slow realization that life is becoming more and more boring. Her god was not strict and did not really demand much out of his followers; Aya tried devoting herself to a cause, such as righteousness or hedonism, but found not only that she was not able to, but that the fanaticism of such causes would often override the uniqueness of an individual and make them irrational devouts. With her lifespan still lasting for a few hundred more years, she doesn't want to transform herself into an empty, irrational shell for a cause - even if that cause is saving orphans and being a "hero".

But life is so boring! Aya meditated on some of her past adventures; she thought about the times when she and her friends overcame devastating odds with their teamwork, or when their bonding and devotion to a good cause caused them to defeat enemies that statistically, they should have very quickly lost to. She thought about those same enemies - what sort of devotion or cause drove them to the meticulous plans and careful, heart-breaking journeys that they made? A chance debate with a defeated evil overlord made her realize that they were not much different from her - from the heroes: they, too, put their heart and soul into a single devotion. They, too, overcame fierce odds to arrive at the power that they wield; fundamentally, her team and the enemies were both once determinators; they were blind to the enemy's cause just as the enemy is blind to theirs.

A fundamental conflict within the world, and to take up arms for one cause is to blindside yourself with the other. So, why not just remain neutral in the cause and watch and see what sort of answers they come up with?

Aya resolved to find people with strong dreams - regardless of what they may be - and basically grant them power; she would teach them the martial abilities that she has learned and impart the disciple with some magical items, and set them into the world with their dreams still strong, but without any additional tenets of philosophy from their instructor. From the shadows, she would watch the things that her disciples would do for her own enjoyment, and use these to better understand what drives human nature and human dreams. If her disciple becomes a patron saint of greatness and overcomes all adversity to bring peace and law to his purview, that's certainly an interesting development. If her disciple becomes a cruel tyrant waving a fist of steel over her sovereign lands, that's certainly interesting as well.

Outliers are to be crushed, of course. If a disciple would ruin the experiment by seeking to destroy the world or something similar and gets close to actually succeeding with no successful intervention, she would crush the disciple; if a disciple spreads too much good and seems to be very difficult for more disciples to overcome, she will crush him as well. Otherwise, the conflicts and struggles of her disciples becomes a point of major curiosity for the elf, as she sits atop her tower and watches the conflicts that she, indirectly, has engineered.

Why is this character evil? You can say that her disciples will probably tend towards good just as often as they may tend towards evil, but evil is (according to the SRD) a blatant disregard for human lives and not just a balancing act of good and evil acts. Aya is treating the entire world as a giant playground to entertain her and doesn't really care about the lives of the other people that are affected by her little games. For a lot of us, she could basically be classified as a sociopath playing god; that's pretty textbook evil in D&D terms.

Why is this character wise? There is a lot to be said about being able to see different sides of the world rather than just the belief that one has grown up with; the character understands the idea of human perspectives, and is willing to acknowledge that others may have beliefs that are just as valid as hers. She has demonstrated great understanding by being able to emphasize with the dreams of others and great experience from her age. She just chooses to see "care for other people" as just another side of the coin when compared to "don't care about other people" rather than subscribe to one or the other as the "one true belief".

Other good examples of wise, evil characters are Johan Liebert (Monster) or Hannibal Lecter (Silence of the Lambs) - both are very insightful about human nature, can read people like a book, have excellent foresight, and are extraordinarily future-minded. Both are also evil monsters.

[ericgrau]

It may seem that way when bad people don't notice the needs of those around them, but actually they just don't care, only claim not to notice, or have selective perception.

The same line of reasoning works in terms of wise levelheadedness and realization of a situation.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

But yes, that has always bugged me as well, as, at least for human-minded creatures, evil always strikes me as somewhat of a defect in one's thinking (at least for any supporting an evil philosophy, as opposed to, say, the Macbeths of the world). But then again I have a non-subjective view of evil (as in evil not being subjective, not my view not being subjective).

Keep in mind that in D&D, there is an objective morality but neither side is objectively correct: in many real-world religions and philosophies, doing/being good is good and doing/being evil is bad, while in D&D both sides have their supporters and neither is correct because good people are judged by Good standards and evil people by Evil standards.

Imagine you have two people: someone who's mostly good but doesn't really go out of his way to advance the cause of Good, and a psychopathic mass-murderer and serial killer. In D&D Land, not only is the killer going to be rewarded by an evil god rather than punished by a good one, he's going to be rewarded more by his evil god than the good-ish person will be by a good god, because the killer was following the tenets of the God of Murder wholeheartedly while the good-ish person wasn't really Good enough to get a great reward from a Good god but was too Good to get a great reward from a Neutral god.

So a wise person of any alignment (at least as far as Wisdom informs alignment and vice versa) is simply one who realizes his or her place in the cosmos and is "in tune with and aware of" the consequences of and motivations for his or her actions. An unwise person of any alignment is one who isn't really mindful of his actions or their motivations and consequences. A low-Wis evil person might do evil things just because, or might try to "redeem" himself to Good when that's really the worst thing you can try (you lose out on your Evil reward and probably can't do enough Good to make up for it), while a high-Wis person is fully conscious of the evilness of his actions and embraces his nature rather than fighting it.

[Zonugal]

I don't see how wisdom is associated with morality. A character can be perseptive, and have a lot of common-sense, yet still only care for his/herself. Wise=/= Moral.


Tl;Dr: Wisdom has nothing to do with morality. There is no contradiction, so you can rest at ease knowing that there are Wise men of every alignment.

Approaching wisdom in a Greek (or even modern) sense it has a very strong tie to morality and ethics. Wisdom can be seen as the insight and understanding in the quest for truth. So in one part the original poster does bring up a nice observation that what we may identify as wisdom conflicts with the idea of evil (as our own "wise-men" talk at such lengths of the virtues & such) but there are some possible examples that could be used to present both an evil & wise individual within D&D.

* An Übermensch type individual may simply see themselves as the next step for humanity. This would be more like Ra's al Ghul from Batman in which he has phenomenal clarity, understanding and insight from his lengthy experiences (which is ultimately one of the hugest parts of attaining wisdom). This individual is evil though because they place too much independence on others to react accordingly to their plans. If they are to flood the world to restore it to a fresh, humble beginning obviously only those who survived had the true strength of character to deserve it (much like the plants that may survive a jungle fire).
* Pure, utter insanity. You can have a very wise character who simply suffers from insanity. Someone brought up above Hannibal Lecture and he is a great example of this. They have a mental defect and that has become their defining feature (over & beyond their wisdom).
* Despair and doom as found in an existential crisis as instigated from the trappings of nihilism. You have a very wise character who thinks all life is pain, punishment, nothing or something akin resulting in their motivation to end it. You could very easily have a wise cleric who from seeing so much decay & death from disease wishes to turn everyone in the world into an undead (as to save them from such pain). His plan comes from a hopeful place but ultimately his own hubris in knowing what is better for others than letting them make their own way throughout the world is his downfall. Such a style of character reminds me of the question offered towards Silenus:

Near the beginning of The Birth of Tragedy, Nietzsche tells the ancient story of King Midas hunting in the forest for the wise Silenus, the companion of Dionysus. At last, after many years, the King manages to capture him and asks what is the best and most desirable thing for man. Silenus maintains a surly silence until, goaded by the King, he bursts out with a contemptuous laugh and says, “Oh, wretched ephemeral race … why do you compel me to tell you what it would be most expedient for you not to hear? What is best of all is utterly beyond your reach: not to be born, not to be, to be nothing. But the second best for you is—to die soon.”

* Another type of wise & evil type character is one built from foresight of some powerful/terrifying evil coming to ravage the world and as such believes the only way to strengthen & prepare the world's inhabitants is to fling them into a horrid war (to which they will hopefully innovate in technology and train themselves to the horror of war).

So there are a lot of ways to have an evil but wise character in D&D, you just need to be creative.

ALSO!


It may be more relevant to describe them in terms of which mental stat they are lacking: the Joker is intelligence and charismatic, but not very wise, while R'as al Ghul is intelligent and wise, but not charismatic.

A simplification, but manages to highlight just how the absence of those two function practically.

I don't know if I would describe Ra's al Ghul, leader of the League of Shadows and master immortal throughout humanity as not charismatic.

The guy has got charisma pouring out of him.

[zlefin]

in the d&d sense of wisdom, i'd say Tarquin is very wise.

[Slipperychicken]

Approaching wisdom in a Greek (or even modern) sense it has a very strong tie to morality and ethics.


So you're intentionally using a different definition of a word than the game provides, then wondering why it doesn't work in the game. This is absurd.


An example of this kind of absurdity:
How can a character with properly-formed feet ever be considered Flat Footed? After all, people with good arch development don't suddenly lose their foot shape when surprised. The Flat-Footed condition, as I understand it, in the medical sense, is when your foot arches collapse, and is permanent. D&D treats it as an extremely temporary condition, as a result of surprise, which heals on it's own in six seconds or less, which is clearly wrong by my understanding of the Flat Footed condition.

So how can people with functional arches be considered Flat Footed, when the two are so obviously contradictory?

[Doorhandle]

I thin Conrad from Wag the Dog may also count. He's worldy, perceptive, almost unflappable, and hellbent on allowing his corrupt president to remain in power.

[Ashtagon]

A very wise good person understands that being being a good person, he will be rewarded in the afterlife by getting a place in Elysium (or Bytopia, or Arvandor, or Celestia, or Ponyville, or wherever).

A very wise evil person understands that by being perfectly evil, he will enter the afterlife as a higher form of tanarr'ri (or whatever), instead of entering the afterlife as souls-currency to be traded and eventually consumed.

Both are very wise in their own ways.

[Firechanter]

Thanks for the replies so far, will take a bit to dig through the longer posts.
Just a few bits for now:

- I'm really not into superheroes of any kind, and haven't seen any of those movies, so I won't get any of those comic book references, sorry ^^
As for Evil and Wise characters, if we take Saruman for instance, my take is that he used to be wise until Sauron corrupted his mind. As Mithrandir put it, "When did Saruman the Wise abandon reason for madness?" If LOTR characters had anything to do with the D&D-ruleset (they don't), I'd interpret Saruman's corruption as a Wisdom drain.

- I find it only natural to apply the prevalent real-world definition to game terms. If D&D Wisdom should have nothing to do with the historical philosophical understanding of Wisdom, they should use a different word, such as Splork.
The comparison with Flat-Footed falls on its face because the term flat-footed is a figure of speech and Wisdom is not. The very definition of flat-footed as "unprepared" is _in the dictionary_ and not a D&D invention.

[Malimar]

Some given examples for "wise" are things I'd put more under "lawful", and examples for "unwise" are things I'd put under "chaotic" (In particular, Ra's al Ghul vs the Joker). Which is to say: I think wisdom has, if anything, more to do with the law-chaos axis than the good-evil axis.

But it may just be that I always see "chaotic" played as "total lack of self-control" (a hallmark of low wisdom), without that actually being intrinsic to the chaotic archetype.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Maybe I'm thinking too modern here. That's basically what the entire post-enlightenment philosophers are about: the message that you should be a good person not for fear of some invisible bogeyman who may send you to hell otherwise, but out of the _understanding_ that this is the right thing; the course of action that benefits everyone the most. And understanding is a key element of Wisdom.

Also, keep in mind that in D&D, Good and Evil are by no means subjective or a matter of interpretation. People typically worship a deity that fits their personal morality. If a Cleric of a Good deity performs Evil acts under the delusion he is being good, he'll soon learn the error of his ways the hard way.

Allow me to attempt a rational explaination:

"Yes, I am Evil. I make no bones about it. Why? I got tired of being fettered by laws and morals. I'm evil, because it is more efficient. You may note, in my Lawful Evil reign, that crime rates have plummeted, that all civilians are employed, that every household has food and shelter, and that none of my neighbors dare invade.

Of course, all of those civillians are peasants living in hovels, their daily bread is the same stuff the Egyptians used... all the nutrition of your mother's turkey dinner... and twelve percent alcohol by volume. This keeps them quiet at night and has dramatically improved morale and decreased crime rates since employing it.

There are no 'slums'. I don't permit them, because they are inefficient and ripe for increasing crime rates. I send my soldiers out to ensure that none of that nonsense is going on. Ruffians are conscripted and pressed into military service, the severity of the crime determines where in the formations they go. Generally, they end up on the front lines. 'Spear catchers', those are called. This is why I don't execute prisoners... this way they serve a double purpose of taking blows intended for trained soldiers who actually have some value.

Sure, drugging your population into civility, taking everything save food and lodging from them, and using criminals as deployable decoys are certainly evil acts. Yet they work. And because of that... I do it."

The military tactics of the real Vlad "The Impaler" Tseppish would also qualify. He would stake his opponents and leave their corpses hanging in the air, a grisly forest of corpses on spears.

Why? Because his opponents had a religious belief that such a death meant their spirit would wander the earth forever, a lost soul.

So, he leveraged his opponent's beliefs and offered them what they perceived to be a literal fate worse than simple death... and his opponents rank-and-file refused to take the field against him. That grisly forest of dangling corpses saved his nation from invasion. But it was no less evil for its victory.

[Andreaz]

As already said, you are using a definition of wisdom that is not the wisdom used in D&D, but there's more to it!

You said "He'd obviously realize being good is better"...it isn't. While morality is objective in D&D, neither is more right than the other.

Good people mess up other good people, and evil people mess up evil people (really, everyone ****s up everyone).
All D&D settings I know either reward either morality equally (the default, it seems) or don't reward either (my favorite), so there's no point in picking one for afterlife's sake.
"Evil" does not mean immediately that you will go out of your way to ruin people, it may simply mean you don't give a damn. Rarely you get the guys who set an indigenous hobo on fire for the sake of it, but most often it's the guy who does not empathize with anyone's plights and just goes their own way.

[Ashtagon]

- I find it only natural to apply the prevalent real-world definition to game terms. If D&D Wisdom should have nothing to do with the historical philosophical understanding of Wisdom, they should use a different word, such as Splork.


That way lies madness. The dominant real-world definition for constitution has nothing to do with a person's health, nor does the real-world definition of dexterity have much to do with moving silently or dodging an attack. For that matter, real-world intelligence has no known relationship with spell-casting ability.

[Firechanter]

You said "He'd obviously realize being good is better"...it isn't. While morality is objective in D&D, neither is more right than the other.

In any game, any simulation I know where the players can either cooperate or fight each other, cooperation makes everyone more successful in the long run.

One example, Settlers of Catan: you can hurt the other players by moving the Bandits. They are denied the resources from the occupied Hex and you get the benefit of stealing a card. Of course your competitors will be happy to return the favour when they get the chance.
But if everyone agrees to occupy only unsettled hexes, you lose a short term benefit but gain a lot more resources in the long run. Everybody develops much faster. Maybe after 15 turns (I never counted them) the players have 8, 7 and 6 points instead of 5, 4 and 3. Everyone is more prosperous.

In the real world, we've seen a huge rise of prosperity in regions where people/nations have agreed not to constantly crush each other's heads, whereas regions with constant wars are stagnating. Peace and trade pays off more than war and pillage.

So I think that one aspect of Wisdom is to understand that being a **** to other people may yield some short term rewards, but holds you back in the long run.

[Hirax]

In any game, any simulation I know where the players can either cooperate or fight each other, cooperation makes everyone more successful in the long run.
...
So I think that one aspect of Wisdom is to understand that being a **** to other people may yield some short term rewards, but holds you back in the long run.

A wise evil person would simply get everyone to work together, but for their benefit. Your arguments are making it sound more like high wisdom would be incompatible with chaotic alignments, not evil ones.

[limejuicepowder]

I mostly agree with what has been said so far, but I think I can identify (and somewhat agree) with the OP: Someone who does evil, if they are wise, must realize that at some point they are going to get caught. Not only that, promoting and doing evil things in the long run leads to more suffering and hardship for all, including the original perpetrator - call it karma, if you will.

Thus, if someone is perceptive, they would see the ultimate end result of their evil acts, and not do them.

[Andreaz]

In any game, any simulation I know where the players can either cooperate or fight each other, cooperation makes everyone more successful in the long run. That's absolutely wise. But not Good or Evil. An evil person is more likely to be selfish, but isn't it selfish to help others because you expect to gain greater rewards for that?

*examples*
So I think that one aspect of Wisdom is to understand that being a **** to other people may yield some short term rewards, but holds you back in the long run.Again, absolutely wise, but not Good or Evil. I do not need to like you or empathize with you or even agree with you to realize that I'll be better off in the long run if you help me (and helping me requires me to help you).

Think of it this way: Wisdom is realizing cooperation works. Being Good is cooperating because everyone is better in the long run. Being Evil is cooperating because you are better in the long run.

Ever played Heroes of Might & Magic 4? Gauldoth Half-dead. Wise evil guy.

[Felyndiira]

I mostly agree with what has been said so far, but I think I can identify (and somewhat agree) with the OP: Someone who does evil, if they are wise, must realize that at some point they are going to get caught. Not only that, promoting and doing evil things in the long run leads to more suffering and hardship for all, including the original perpetrator - call it karma, if you will.

I'm a bit confused. Why will they get caught, and how would 'getting caught' be different from a good guy suffering from a fate worse than death after getting defeated by a villain?

The (fantasy) world isn't supposed to abide by the conventions of drama. A lie could go on for a person's lifetime (or even longer) without the person suffering from any reprisals; a wise and evil ruler that wants to be king can very well have his cake for the entirety of his career, while a wise and evil druid might eradicate civilizations to return everything to the tranquil nature that he loves. There isn't some greater law of the world that dictates that good will always triumph over evil no matter what happens.

A wise person can very easily realize that regardless of whether they are good or evil, their chances of getting offed by someone isn't going to change; they might decide that it would be better to just live for his own enjoyment instead of sacrificing himself for other people and dying miserably on an unmarked grave instead of promoting peace and friendship. They might want to prove something - such as nihilism or the superiority of an iron fist rule - to themselves and to other people. They might just seek immortality in history. It's quite a bit of a generalization to say "wise people realize that they always will be caught if they do evil, and that is undesirable to anybody."

And no, karma itself is a belief, not a universal and known rule of D&D. A wise person can similarly realize that as long as there are enough good people in the world to keep civilization stable and the people trusting, there is ample room for him to do whatever without reprisal.


In any game, any simulation I know where the players can either cooperate or fight each other, cooperation makes everyone more successful in the long run.
Evil doesn't mean villain ball. I've played an evil character (it's my avatar/username character, actually) that cooperated very well with her good teammates, mostly for the goal of having them help her overthrow her mother and take over her house later on. She made quite a few sacrifices for them and continued to regard them as friends even after her goal was fulfilled because good people make trustworthy allies, and she'll probably need their help again when things go south (as they are prone to do when you're the matriarch of a drow house).

Evil characters are capable of all of that; a villain ball carrier would kick puppies in the open, sure, but villain ball carriers are also not wise people.


So I think that one aspect of Wisdom is to understand that being a **** to other people may yield some short term rewards, but holds you back in the long run.

Wisdom is not always about full-on economic progress, and there are plenty of ways to be an evil leader while understanding that exact fact.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

I mostly agree with what has been said so far, but I think I can identify (and somewhat agree) with the OP: Someone who does evil, if they are wise, must realize that at some point they are going to get caught. Not only that, promoting and doing evil things in the long run leads to more suffering and hardship for all, including the original perpetrator - call it karma, if you will.

Thus, if someone is perceptive, they would see the ultimate end result of their evil acts, and not do them.

Some would see the ultimate end result of their evil acts, and smile.

Sure, eventually he's going to catch it. But you know what? His tale of being defeated will go down in legend. His name will literally be the stuff of legends, told in a hushed whisper. Mothers will threaten their naughty children with tales of his cruelty.

Dude... that's like the ultimate win. I mean... sure, the Pharaohs of Egypt were pretty cruel about the manpower to build the pyramids... but even four thousand years later... they are remembered for them. Mission accomplished.

Alternately, particularly with Lawful Evil, they could look on their results. Sure, they ground their peasantry under their heel, drugged them with their food to ensure they did not revolt, took every last resource they produced and gave them bare subsistence... but you know what? They're alive, aren't they? Considering the threats defeated to protect them... I'mma gonna call that one a victory.

Sure, you might want a Good person ruling in peace... but when war inflicts itself upon you, then you want a guy who can make the tough choices. War is an atrocity. Thus ensuring as crushing a victory as possible in as short a time as possible minimizes your losses, regardless of how many atrocities you have to commit to get there.

[Ashtagon]

http://cheaptalk.org/2012/04/22/golden-balls-solved/

Game theory probably has something to say abouyt wisdom and maximising success.

[Rubik]

Look at Azula, from Avatar: The Last Airbender. She's incredibly cruel and self-centered (and also a complete Daddy's Little Monster), but she's insanely insightful (and also somewhat insane). She definitely has high scores in everything, including Wisdom, but she's definitely Evil with a capital E.

Also a capital VIL, but still.

Also, I had a LE goblin psion//factotum who was evil to the core and enjoyed it greatly, but he still did good things for others because it benefited him to do so, even if not directly. Others seeing him doing good deeds gave him a measure of leeway when it came to suspension of disbelief when he got caught indulging his love of carnage and slaughter. He knew that a lot of the things he did were wrong, but he loved doing them too much to bother stopping, and if he could build himself a fanbase doing it, then all the better.

[Firechanter]

http://cheaptalk.org/2012/04/22/golden-balls-solved/

Game theory probably has something to say abouyt wisdom and maximising success.

Confucius say:
http://philsantamaria.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Confucius-Say.2.jpg
Half of something is better than all of nothing.
^^

[Ravenica]

The only reason wisdom has any "positive moral relation" in real life is because many religions use it as a buzzword for THEIR kind of thinking. By definition it has no relation to morality at all.

And even then half of that is just translation into English and the vagaries thereof.

[Gnaeus]

For game theory to work, and to turn wise people into "good" people, requires 2 things. Transparency, and repeated action.

Without repeted action, game theory is meaningless. You harm the other player for short term gain, because they will not be around to get back at you. Legal example: in a small city, lawyers will be more cooperative with each other, because they will have to work with the other party again, or with other people who know them. In a big city, law is more cutthroat, because you may never meet the other person again, or not for years. In the classic Prisoners Dilemma, you are always better off if you rat out your buddy in the short term, but you are worse off if the problem comes up again.

Game theory also requires transparency. You have to KNOW if the other person is harming you. In the Catan example, you know if the other player robs you, so you know that it is time to seek revenge. If you have an evil tactic that is secret, like quietly skimming money from your boss or cheating on a trade embargo that you agreed to, game theory won't apply, because if you don't think the other side will find out they cant retaliate.

[Ulm11]

Confucius say:
Half of something is better than all of nothing.
^^

You know that Rich has an article that describes two villains just that right?

[Ashtagon]

You know, Redcloak is both evil and wise. Just saying.

[Suddo]

Also, keep in mind that in D&D, Good and Evil are by no means subjective or a matter of interpretation. People typically worship a deity that fits their personal morality. If a Cleric of a Good deity performs Evil acts under the delusion he is being good, he'll soon learn the error of his ways the hard way.

This is the problem with gods being active on the world. What if the god changes his mind? What if the god becomes true neutral instead of neutral good? Want to bite into something really interesting?

Make a neutral/lawful good god (for this example his name is Bob); He's good for lets say 1000 years (give or take a few decades); He has plenty of worshipers but isn't a tier 1 god; he thinks a certain idea, you can create your own but I'll make one: He wonders why evil exists and why its allowed to continue.
Tier 1 gods try to explain to him why, he understands some but disagrees on key points; The Tier 1 gods tell him that its also the way it is; Bob is angered by this and begins to try and gain power and destroy evil; Bob tells his followers to slaughter evil where ever they see it; Bob and his followers go on a crusade; Bob is now Chaotic Good (at best); Bob sees that evil isn't stopping (because it tends not to); Bob once again asks the Tier 1 gods why they won't help; Same discussion happens; Bob now believes that inactivity towards evil is the same as evil; The Crusade of Bob now begins to take the lives of neutral people because they don't do anything to stop evil; Bob is now Evil (amounts of Chaotic/Lawful-ness vary).

Now one could argue that Bob wasn't wise enough to see the error in his way, but many others would argue that Bob was wise enough to see the error in the other god's ways.

[Firechanter]

You know that Rich has an article that describes two villains just that right?

No, I never read his articles. Do you mean the "Villain Workshop" one?

[limejuicepowder]

I'm a bit confused. Why will they get caught, and how would 'getting caught' be different from a good guy suffering from a fate worse than death after getting defeated by a villain?

The (fantasy) world isn't supposed to abide by the conventions of drama. A lie could go on for a person's lifetime (or even longer) without the person suffering from any reprisals; a wise and evil ruler that wants to be king can very well have his cake for the entirety of his career, while a wise and evil druid might eradicate civilizations to return everything to the tranquil nature that he loves. There isn't some greater law of the world that dictates that good will always triumph over evil no matter what happens.

A wise person can very easily realize that regardless of whether they are good or evil, their chances of getting offed by someone isn't going to change; they might decide that it would be better to just live for his own enjoyment instead of sacrificing himself for other people and dying miserably on an unmarked grave instead of promoting peace and friendship. They might want to prove something - such as nihilism or the superiority of an iron fist rule - to themselves and to other people. They might just seek immortality in history. It's quite a bit of a generalization to say "wise people realize that they always will be caught if they do evil, and that is undesirable to anybody."

And no, karma itself is a belief, not a universal and known rule of D&D. A wise person can similarly realize that as long as there are enough good people in the world to keep civilization stable and the people trusting, there is ample room for him to do whatever without reprisal.


Well that's what I get for typing in the 3 minutes before I go to work.

Let me clarify: my use of the word "karma" was not to reference the actual religious beliefs associated with the word, I was using it to mean essentially what someone else already said: generally, when everyone works together, every is better off. When one person is a selfish parasite, they are treated as such.

I will also fully admit that Yes, sometimes bad guys can live their life without facing the repercussions of their actions - but they are in the extreme minority. Most of the time, eventually, a selfish and/or cruel person gets what they deserve, in one form or another. It is human nature to think "that won't happen to me," I would think a wise person would be at least somewhat aware of that bias and account for it: the chances of them not facing "justice" (for lack of better words) is slim.

Also, I would caution against using someone who upholds evil in principle in this argument. Someone who goes out to prove the validity of a iron-fist rule by definition doesn't care about more traditional ideas of morality, and thus won't care when the peasants under them starve. This is why characters like the Joker are poor examples - the Joker follows evil and chaos for the sake of those things. Clinically, he is a psychopath, and should be excluded in a discussion of the actions of mental healthy people.

[SilverSheriff]

Master Li. (http://jadeempire.wikia.com/wiki/Master_Li)

[PairO'Dice Lost]

I think part of the problem here is that the OP and several others are equating Evil with stereotypical villains. Evil is a charismatic corrupter who is betrayed by his minions once they see the error of their ways and repent; Evil is irrational and loses in the end; Evil can't or doesn't play well with others while Good always cooperates; and so on.

It's been pointed out by three different people in three different ways already, but I'll say it again: in D&D, Evil is just as correct as Good (and Law, Chaos, and Neutrality, for that matter). Corrupted people don't see the "error of their ways," because there is no error; a fallen paladin who becomes a blackguard is just fine where he is, thank you very much, and there's no point in falling again. Evil isn't guaranteed to lose at all, and if you have an Evil Overlord who reads the list or TvTropes it's quite likely to win. Evil isn't going to "get caught" eventually, as that implies punishment that outweighs the crimes; even if a BBEG is killed, if he was sufficiently evil he is rewarded for the whole thing. Evil is as good as or better than Good at cooperating with allies--the different sorts of fiends have their differences, but so do the different sorts of celestials, the major difference being that fiends will make allies of convenience while the celestials are usually honest about their alliances.

Here's a good way to look at it: the OP is thinking of evil BBEGs while it actually works more like evil PCs. In an actual campaign you want the PCs to win (or at least not TPK), so you give the BBEG a crippling weakness of overconfidence, sprinkle some minions in his base who are unsure of their boss's motivation, loosen security, that sort of thing. That's not the definition of all Evil, though, that's Evil set up with the specific goal of being defeated. If you want to see rational, wise Evil unshackled from genre conventions, run an evil campaign with a bunch of evil PCs. They don't immediately fall to bickering, they take advantage of ally with the people they know they can trust. They ward their bases with multiple redundancies, close every security loophole, screen their minions for disloyalty, come up with complicated plots that don't fall apart because of a MacGuffin (or if they would, the PCs scry-and-fry whoever dares to pick up the Holy Sword of Whoever at the first sign of its discovery), use whatever means they need to get ahead, and so on.

So, really, the "in tune with your surroundings" part of Wisdom also includes things like genre-savviness (hello, Tarquin), intuition of heroes' or villains' actions (hello, Ra's al Ghul), and similar. The OP's conception of evil being unwise is actually a combination of evil being incompetent or the described actions being chaotic rather than actually evil.

[kardar233]

I think part of the problem here is that the OP and several others are equating Evil with stereotypical villains. Evil is a charismatic corrupter who is betrayed by his minions once they see the error of their ways and repent; Evil is irrational and loses in the end; Evil can't or doesn't play well with others while Good always cooperates; and so on.

It's been pointed out by three different people in three different ways already, but I'll say it again: in D&D, Evil is just as correct as Good (and Law, Chaos, and Neutrality, for that matter). Corrupted people don't see the "error of their ways," because there is no error; a fallen paladin who becomes a blackguard is just fine where he is, thank you very much, and there's no point in falling again. Evil isn't guaranteed to lose at all, and if you have an Evil Overlord who reads the list or TvTropes it's quite likely to win. Evil isn't going to "get caught" eventually, as that implies punishment that outweighs the crimes; even if a BBEG is killed, if he was sufficiently evil he is rewarded for the whole thing. Evil is as good as or better than Good at cooperating with allies--the different sorts of fiends have their differences, but so do the different sorts of celestials, the major difference being that fiends will make allies of convenience while the celestials are usually honest about their alliances.

Here's a good way to look at it: the OP is thinking of evil BBEGs while it actually works more like evil PCs. In an actual campaign you want the PCs to win (or at least not TPK), so you give the BBEG a crippling weakness of overconfidence, sprinkle some minions in his base who are unsure of their boss's motivation, loosen security, that sort of thing. That's not the definition of all Evil, though, that's Evil set up with the specific goal of being defeated. If you want to see rational, wise Evil unshackled from genre conventions, run an evil campaign with a bunch of evil PCs. They don't immediately fall to bickering, they take advantage of ally with the people they know they can trust. They ward their bases with multiple redundancies, close every security loophole, screen their minions for disloyalty, come up with complicated plots that don't fall apart because of a MacGuffin (or if they would, the PCs scry-and-fry whoever dares to pick up the Holy Sword of Whoever at the first sign of its discovery), use whatever means they need to get ahead, and so on.

So, really, the "in tune with your surroundings" part of Wisdom also includes things like genre-savviness (hello, Tarquin), intuition of heroes' or villains' actions (hello, Ra's al Ghul), and similar. The OP's conception of evil being unwise is actually a combination of evil being incompetent or the described actions being chaotic rather than actually evil.

Dice nails the real issue at hand, as usual.

Remember "Evil will always triumph, because Good is Dumb!" This is the flip side. Evil people who aren't shackled with storyline flaws (the kind of people who read the Evil Overlord List) are actually quite successful. If you're successful, you're getting temporal rewards (whatever vice you feel like, you're an Evil Overlord!) and then if someone actually beats you, you end up being a high-ranking Devil for the rest of eternity (which arguably might not be too bad). That sounds like a good idea to me.

~EDIT~ Also, the title question of "how can anyone be Wise yet Evil"? That's primarily because most people have never seen anyone Evil being anything except Dumb.

[NichG]

Another thing about the game theory examples, those usually assume a symmetry between the players. If you have someone who has an innate advantage over the rest of the players, or someone who can alter the payoffs, or a number of other things, then you can change the equilibrium and the optimal behaviors. Basically, if you want a certain kind of outcome to be optimal, you can generally find the parameters for a game that will make it so, so it doesn't really say much about real behavior unless you can make a convincing argument for what the real values of those parameters should be.

Lets be concrete about wisdom though. Someone who is very wise is:
1. Very perceptive of their environment and their overall situation
2. Very perceptive about the feelings, needs, desires, etc of others
3. Very in tune with their own drives - they understand themself.
4. Intuitively able to grasp the consequences of actions, both short and long-term

I think that point #3 is key to a Wise, Evil character. Being wise doesn't mean that the person's core drives will be any different than if they weren't wise. Being wise just means that the person is aware of them keenly and can act to fulfil them. If that person's drives are inconsistent with the happiness of others, then they might well end up going Evil. A Wise person might decide and seriously mean 'its not worth living if I can't have this thing', and so taking actions which put their life and stability at risk can still be perfectly 'wise'. Point #3 is also where alien psychologies come in, which can create a lot of apparent paradoxical behavior when you try to analyze them from the point of view of societal norms. This is particularly good for deities I think.

Imagine a over-deity sitting in the void. He creates the world and then thinks on it for thousands of years. He is trying to decide what makes the existence of the world valuable. Why is the universe better with a world than without it? At the end of this time, he decides that the stories spawned by the world are the important thing. Simply having 'more people' isn't valuable. Simply having another place that has happiness isn't valuable on its own. Its the stories that are formed when people seek things, strive to be happy, and eventually achieve it. From the point of view of a tabletop game, this is really very perceptive, as the game itself would have no reason to exist if not for the conflicts that the players then resolve. But actually having to go and create those conflicts so that stories can exist and be interesting, that means that this deity has to dedicate himself to being the source of all evil.

[Gray Mage]

Remember, just because they're evil, it doesn't mean they can't cooperate. The IFCC from the comic is a good example of evil cooperating. Tarquin's party as well (we don't know the other's aligment, but there's a very good chance they're evil as well).

[Wings of Peace]

The Tragedy of the Commons explains how a person can be evil and wise fairly easily. If I can turn a profit in a society by exploiting a helpless underclass while draining resources from the upperclass till they're powerless to stop me then why not do it? Sure I'll eventually collapse the society under that business model but there are countless other societies I can move to. Hell, maybe one of them will give me tax breaks to do it to their enemies.

Edit:

It was said earlier somewhere that the villains being used as examples are stereotypically evil and too an extent I can see that as true. For example, a high level Cleric who uses his magical powers of creation to corner a low-magic society's economy has arguably used his high wisdom score to make the best decision (compared to the resources required to seize the society by force).

[Lord Vukodlak]

When my Lawful Evil cleric and party were hired to help these dwarves defend their mine from invaders the dwarves were a little reclutant to to accept my help. I then explained why evil mercenaries were superior to good. If the good adventurers discovered the dwarves had burrowed into these monsters homes, or stolen the land from them they'd turn against them. They could even be tricked into believing the dwarves are at fault and then turn against them. But If I wished for continued buisness I must honor my contracts, I don't care how the dwarves came into conflict with these people. I'm being paid to clear the mine and thats the only thing that matters.

In one mission he and the party were hired to kill some bandits, did it matter these bandits turned out to be initiate paladins tricked into attacking caravans to steal the evil magic items being transported? No it was just a sweet wonderful bonus. He got to personally murder nearly two dozen paladins in training and got to call it justice.


Evil Intelligence is knowing the precise ritual that will allow you to destroy the peaceful kingdom that banished you.

Evil Wisdom is understanding that you probably shouldn’t perform said ritual while you’re standing in the estimated blast radius. Excuse me while I roll over laughing.


So I think that one aspect of Wisdom is to understand that being a **** to other people may yield some short term rewards, but holds you back in the long run.
Just because modern society decided piracy and acts of banditry against one another was bad for everyone doesn't mean anyone stopped be **** to other people for the rewards. They just found less destructive means to do it.


What if the god changes his mind? The answer to that is they don't. On common feature of deities is they don't change there mind ever. Even if they did as immortal beings woven into the fabric of creation it be a gradual change over the course of centuries not a sudden face turn. Deities in fiction rarely have sudden shifts in 'alignment' and when they do its usually the result of being corrupted by some force or having that corruption purged.

It really depends in how tied a god is to there portfolio. Are the gods just really powerful beings who decided "I'm the god of X" Or is there divinity tied to the portfolio they manage.

[Suddo]

The answer to that is they don't. On common feature of deities is they don't change there mind ever. Even if they did as immortal beings woven into the fabric of creation it be a gradual change over the course of centuries not a sudden face turn. Deities in fiction rarely have sudden shifts in 'alignment' and when they do its usually the result of being corrupted by some force or having that corruption purged.

It really depends in how tied a god is to there portfolio. Are the gods just really powerful beings who decided "I'm the god of X" Or is there divinity tied to the portfolio they manage.

Once again why I hate gods. I mean even if the "sudden shift" happened over 500 years some elves live that long what would they do?

[Lord Vukodlak]

Once again why I hate gods. I mean even if the "sudden shift" happened over 500 years some elves live that long what would they do?

If the elf is a devoute follower of that god he'd probably find himself changing alongside his deity. Why would an elf remained fixed in his morality over that time period but not a truly immortal outsider? Or at some point he'd realize his god is changing in a way he doesn't approve and leave the church.

[Ulm11]

No, I never read his articles. Do you mean the "Villain Workshop" one?

Sort of, but the article I was referencing was the Emotional Response article.

[Doug Lampert]

Another thing about the game theory examples, those usually assume a symmetry between the players. If you have someone who has an innate advantage over the rest of the players, or someone who can alter the payoffs, or a number of other things, then you can change the equilibrium and the optimal behaviors. Basically, if you want a certain kind of outcome to be optimal, you can generally find the parameters for a game that will make it so, so it doesn't really say much about real behavior unless you can make a convincing argument for what the real values of those parameters should be.

The first itterated prisoner's delima games theory experiment I know of tested a set of strategies against their payoff matrix and interaction rules and came to the conclusion that "cooperate first then Tit-for-Tat" was best.

It was then pointed out that it was fairly easy to PROVE mathematically that in fact "always defect" was the dominant strategy over the space of all strategies. The test designers hadn't included a bunch of possible strategies.

Strangely, the SAME REASERCHERS who'd thought the test was "good enough" when it gave "cooperate first then Tit-for-Tat" was best suddenly decided that their test rules weren't good enough when it was shown that those rules actually gave "always defect" as the clear best strategy.

You COULD do a really complicated games theory set-up. Limited and sometimes faulty information so you're not always sure who defected, interaction times semi-random, a real chance that a major betrayal would eliminate a side and thus eliminate any chance of direct reprisal, reputation rules and ways to spoof the reputation rules. But what's the point? If you actually included everything in the real world, you'd come out that any strategy observed in large numbers of living organisms is at least acceptably close to optimal (else it would not remain evolutionarily viable), and that includes LOTS of pure predators, LOTS of parasites, and for that matter a substantial number of things that look like altruism.

Such studies almost always tell you more about the experimenters than about reality.

[Malimar]

The first itterated prisoner's delima games theory experiment I know of tested a set of strategies against their payoff matrix and interaction rules and came to the conclusion that "cooperate first then Tit-for-Tat" was best.

My favorite of these experiments/contests (for most of the better ones, multiple academic teams submitted "programs", algorithms dictating behavior in an iterated Prisoner's Dilemma environment, which were then set loose together and randomly paired up for interactions X number of times):

One team submitted a bunch of different programs. The first few interactions in the algorithm were a sort of shibboleth to identify other programs from this team. Once such a program was identified, one program would take a fall for the other. One program was set up to always defect when it recognized a friendly program, the others were set up to always cooperate. (When they encountered a wild program, the fall guys would always defect, to minimize unaffiliated programs' ability to gain points. I think the intended winning program went tit-for-tat with wild programs, but I could be misremembering that.)

As one might expect, the fall guy programs did pretty badly, and the intended winning program did, in fact, win, doing even better than tit-for-tat. Which is to say: Thrallherd/leadership is the winningest strategy.

As one might expect, the number of programs that a single group could submit was limited in subsequent contests. (Which is to say: sensible DMs ban thrallherd/leadership.)

(Tit-for-tat always does well. Forgive-once-then-tit-for-tat does even better, because it doesn't get locked in a mutually-destructive hate spiral with defect-once-then-tit-for-tat and its ilk. The more forgiving tit-for-two-tats does even better in a field of not-particularly-aggressive contenders, but does worse in an aggressively predatory field. Always-defect only ever does well if the environment is imperfectly iterated, e.g. if programs can't remember past interactions.)

[NichG]

Not to mention the implicit assumption in all of this that Prisoner's Dilemma is actually the right payoff matrix for good versus evil...

I mean, the crew of a ship is also playing an iterated game, called 'lets get home to port.' The payoff matrix is zero, except for cooperate. The globally optimal strategy, the equilibrium, etc are all trivially 'cooperate'. The thing is, researchers don't like to work on trivial problems because other researchers read the paper and say 'thats trivial! it should not be published', so we hear a lot more about the problems where things are paradoxical or 'interesting' and get the idea that they represent the majority of real cases, when boringly trivial problems are actually quite common.

[dascarletm]

In any game, any simulation I know where the players can either cooperate or fight each other, cooperation makes everyone more successful in the long run.

One example, Settlers of Catan: you can hurt the other players by moving the Bandits. They are denied the resources from the occupied Hex and you get the benefit of stealing a card. Of course your competitors will be happy to return the favour when they get the chance.
But if everyone agrees to occupy only unsettled hexes, you lose a short term benefit but gain a lot more resources in the long run. Everybody develops much faster. Maybe after 15 turns (I never counted them) the players have 8, 7 and 6 points instead of 5, 4 and 3. Everyone is more prosperous.

In the real world, we've seen a huge rise of prosperity in regions where people/nations have agreed not to constantly crush each other's heads, whereas regions with constant wars are stagnating. Peace and trade pays off more than war and pillage.

So I think that one aspect of Wisdom is to understand that being a **** to other people may yield some short term rewards, but holds you back in the long run.

I'm sorry if this is addressed, but I have to comment. I've won 9 out of 10 Catan games because of the bandit. I make other players get into "wars" when they are both poised to obtain resources I try to monopolise. Why have everyone get an even playing field in a peaceful world, when I can manipulate that to my advantage?

[Water_Bear]

I think the problem here is really about the issue of empathy. A Wise person understands how other people feel, they know the cost of their actions in terms of the suffering they inflict. But nothing says they have to care.

After all, if you value things based on an egoistic rather than an altruistic perspective then someone else experiencing pain or pleasure is only relevant in terms of how that effects their usefulness to you. A Wise and Evil person should be able to (intuitively or through experience) grasp that concept fairly easily.

Even if you think altruism is the intrinsically "correct" focus of morality, that opinion doesn't matter one bit to someone who disagrees. Hell, even someone who "knows" that altruistic benevolence is the morally optimal path can still value themselves more than other people and choose their own advancement over helping others, morality be damned.

[Zonugal]

The only reason wisdom has any "positive moral relation" in real life is because many religions use it as a buzzword for THEIR kind of thinking. By definition it has no relation to morality at all.

Umm... No.

[Ravenica]

Umm... No.

What a rebuttal, care to elaborate?

[ShneekeyTheLost]

What a rebuttal, care to elaborate?

Considering that goes into Real World Religion, which is a no-no topic on these forums, probably not.

However, I've posted several examples of evil and wise, and heard no rebuttals from them.

[Zonugal]

What a rebuttal, care to elaborate?

The idea that the only connection between wisdom & moral/value theory is a propagandist push from religion is ridiculous.

You can find ancient writings that talk about morality in a manner consistent with how we may identify as a wise approach that is separated from any religious association.

[Ravenica]

The idea that the only connection between wisdom & moral/value theory is a propagandist push from religion is ridiculous.

You can find ancient writings that talk about morality in a manner consistent with how we may identify as a wise approach that is separated from any religious association.

I was not implying "religious propoganda" I perhaps mis-worded it. Replace "religious" with "Philosophical" and the proper pluralisations. Many of the Philosophies that define wisdom to involve morality disagree extensively. The only agreed upon definition is the one that comes straight out of the dictionary.

Excerpt from wikipedia to clarify my stance on wisdom.


Wisdom is a deep understanding and realization of people, things, events or situations, resulting in the ability to apply perceptions, judgements and actions in keeping with this understanding. It often requires control of one's emotional reactions (the "passions") so that universal principles, reason and knowledge prevail to determine one's actions. Wisdom is also the comprehension of what is true coupled with optimum judgment as to action. Synonyms include: sagacity, discernment, or insight.

Morality is as subjective in real life based on ones experiences and learnings that no one morality could be assigned to wisdom in the first place. It fits perfectly with the definition used in various RPG's

[Tvtyrant]

I'm going to take my example from the hip band The Protomen!

The title character, Protoman, was a hero who sought to rescue mankind from the vile clutches of Dr. Wily's robot army. He realized that this was a futile action, as none of the humans joined him in the battle. Their reliance on him was identical to their original reliance on Dr. Wily. "They don't want to change this, they don't want a hero. They just want a Martyr, a statue to raise!"

He turned against them because they didn't want to be free as he had assumed. They wanted to be ruled over, their lives made simple by the control of others.

So he abandons them to their fate and joins Dr. Wily, making him evil. But he was capable of inferring the truth(as it is in the story), that they craved control and pretended to want freedom.

[Zonugal]

I was not implying "religious propoganda" I perhaps mis-worded it. Replace "religious" with "Philosophical" and the proper pluralisations. Many of the Philosophies that define wisdom to involve morality disagree extensively. The only agreed upon definition is the one that comes straight out of the dictionary.

Naturally philosophers are going to disagree on such a vague, lucid idea like what constitutes wisdom (or being wise). Philosophers disagree & argue about nearly everything. But it isn't about everyone reaching a concise definition of wisdom (or how it connects with morality) but accepting that there is a connection between the two & that they both influence the other in some manner.

The idea that we should disregard looking to understand such a connection because there has been no agreement in the philosophical community seems rather confusing & lazy to me.


Morality is as subjective in real life based on ones experiences and learnings that no one morality could be assigned to wisdom in the first place. It fits perfectly with the definition used in various RPG's

Our traditional approach to morality is rather loose but there are theories, systems and writing that structure morality/values/ethics in a much more concrete manner alleviating us from abandoning any inspection into morality out of an assumption of moral relativism being the prevalent adoption/assumption of morality.

[Ravenica]

Naturally philosophers are going to disagree on such a vague, lucid idea like what constitutes wisdom (or being wise). Philosophers disagree & argue about nearly everything. But it isn't about everyone reaching a concise definition of wisdom (or how it connects with morality) but accepting that there is a connection between the two & that they both influence the other in some manner.

The idea that we should disregard looking to understand such a connection because there has been no agreement in the philosophical community seems rather confusing & lazy to me.

I am not disregarding "a" connection, merely stating in terms of this discussion that it is irrelevant. Wisdom is defined in D&D as per the dictionary definition. Under that understanding it is perfectly possible for someone to be both Evil and Wise in both reality and your favorite campaign setting.


Our traditional approach to morality is rather loose but there are theories, systems and writing that structure morality/values/ethics in a much more concrete manner alleviating us from abandoning any inspection into morality out of an assumption of moral relativism being the prevalent adoption/assumption of morality.
Any debate on THAT issue wouldn't be appropriate here but needless to say I prefer to keep my morality and my wisdom segregated :smalltongue:

[Zonugal]

Than it seems like we are going to have to agree to disagree on this prevalent topic.

And agree that Ra's al Ghul is a perfect model of a wise, evil character.

[Kinsmarck]

A difference of internalized values is what separates 'good' from 'evil,' and application of knowledge is what separates intelligence from wisdom. Therefore, if one has a different set of values than the common 'good,' but still applies their knowledge in a world-wise way, they may be viewed as simultaneously evil and wise.

As a grim example, say a cleric (since said class came into question earlier in the thread) comes upon the knowledge that a vile plague has infected a small village. He has designs upon the region, and knows that, should a plague outbreak ravage the land, his careful machinations will be thrown into disarray. So, to keep it from spreading, he kills every last resident of the village in the night. (Insert dramatic Sephiroth-walk scene here. :P) He has spared the country a plague outbreak, preserved the region, and, if he's clever, created a 'mysterious massacre' that he can manipulate to his wishes in neighboring towns. In this way, he has been both quite evil, and quite wise. It's simply wisdom based upon a different set of values than most folks.'

[Firechanter]

Just discovered a cute video about Ethics:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkS6WpbLUFw

(It's from the viewpoint of Aliens observing human behaviour, very amusing.)

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff of Moddingham: Thread locked for review.