PDA

View Full Version : How to rationalize evil?



AttilaTheGeek
2013-08-29, 11:50 PM
I want to set up a good guy who goes more and more off the deep end until he, and the players, realize he's actually become completely evil. "For the greater good" is one way, but what are some others?

Vitruviansquid
2013-08-29, 11:54 PM
"I've done so much good for the world, isn't it time for the world to give a little back?"

Mystic Muse
2013-08-29, 11:55 PM
"When the cruelty that was inflicted on me comes back full circle to its originators, why are they the victims?"

Tengu_temp
2013-08-29, 11:57 PM
Justifying more and more evil acts as something he's doing for the benefit of his people.

Righteous retribution - he's just striking back against evil that was done to him.

He does what he has to because circumstances/some specific bad guys forced him to.

Play Spec Ops: The Line for a great example of how someone well-meaning can go completely evil, while still thinking he's doing good and deluding himself by blaming everything bad that happened on other factors.

kyoryu
2013-08-30, 12:25 AM
"For the greater good"

That's probably been used to justify more evil than anything else. People who are willing to break a few eggs to make an omelette never seem to think they should be one of the broken eggs.

Mastikator
2013-08-30, 12:51 AM
Seeking out evil to do justice turns into bloodlust and revenge. That's one other that doesn't involve "the greater good" but still turns good into evil.
Then you can do an inverse "greater good" thing, where a bunch of small independently good deeds lead up to some great evil which he's forced to embrace.

Ravens_cry
2013-08-30, 03:00 AM
Before any of this, I'd work this out with the player in question, because messing with a player character like this without their consent smacks of the worst kind of railroading.

TuggyNE
2013-08-30, 03:58 AM
Before any of this, I'd work this out with the player in question, because messing with a player character like this without their consent smacks of the worst kind of railroading.

It sounded to me like an NPC, but maybe that should be clarified.

VariSami
2013-08-30, 04:20 AM
"I have not changed - I remain righteous. It is the world that no longer agrees with me, and it is the world that should be punished for its sins."

Spiryt
2013-08-30, 04:30 AM
Without details on what one is exactly doing and how it's really hard to tell much, possibilities are countless....

Is he someone with position of any serious power, or just a dude?

Is he running a bank/cantor, or is he a mercenary?

endoperez
2013-08-30, 04:58 AM
What if the guy starts out thinking he's "not evil", instead of good. It can be difficult to think of yourself as a good guy if you do bad things. If he accepts that he's not a good guy, but that he's doing everything he can to achieve a good goal... now that's something.

I mean, it's a good goal, something the players want to achieve too. Even if they abandon the guy's plan, they would want to achieve his goal.

Hjolnai
2013-08-30, 05:03 AM
Perhaps he has loyalties within his family which drag him step by step away from the path of Good - coming to the aid of a cousin who is attacked repeatedly, gradually seeing that the attacks are justified, as his cousin is evil (not obviously so) - but he can't just refuse his aid to family.

By the time these loyalties are cut, his moral compass has been dragged decidedly southward. He can no longer see the difference between the forces of Good fighting to stop his cousin from <insert evil act here> and the violence his cousin did himself.

Berenger
2013-08-30, 06:12 AM
Let him perceive traditional good deeds that fail or backfire.

For example:

1. A charitable cleric is robbed and left to bleed to death while in the slums to distribute bread and hope amongst the poor. Lesson: Low-life scum does not deserve charity. Let them starve.

2. A noble knight murdered in his sleep by a spiteful enemy whose life he spared in a duel or battle. Lesson: Mercy is a weakness. Kill them all.

3. A famous artist and universal genius is burned on the stake or torn to shreds by an angry mob for advocating peace with an enemy race, liberation of slaves or another progressive idea. Lesson: Various.

4. A known criminal is released due to procedural errors, his high social standing or open bribery / intimidation of the judge. Lesson: Don't trust laws and authority. They are useless. You have to be judge, jury and executioner in personal union and may do anything you deem necessary (this last one is mainly chaotic, but can turn to blatant evil quickly by arbitrary and excessive "punishments").

Amphetryon
2013-08-30, 06:15 AM
Breaking Bad, eh?

"I realize my time here is limited, and I must do what I can, while I can, to assure that my family is secure when I'm gone."

Ashtagon
2013-08-30, 06:26 AM
We do what we must, because we can.

nedz
2013-08-30, 06:28 AM
Several, all beginning with "I" for some reason.


Insanity: the guy just loses touch with reality.
Ideology: the guy focusses on one idea too much; until the ends justify the means.
Innocence: It's not his fault, it's the fault of the victims. Various sub-rationalisations.
Ingratitude: "I sacrificed so much to help them, but I never got any gratitude. When I needed help, where where they ? They'll pay for my help now."

Prince Raven
2013-08-30, 06:49 AM
Requires DM co-operation: Force him to make hard decisions, where there is no clear right answer, constantly. Have him fail. Make him angry and bitter. Then have him face some form of adversity that he cannot defeat without resorting to evil, with such dire consequences that he has no choice. Seal the deal with some sort of demonic pact for the power to win, power that corrupts him so that he becomes that which he once hated.

Adanedhel
2013-08-30, 06:54 AM
Personal favourite; Fighting fire with fire.

SethoMarkus
2013-08-30, 09:27 AM
We do what we must, because we can.

For the good of all of us except the ones who are dead...

AKA_Bait
2013-08-30, 10:21 AM
Slowly increasing the level of "punishment" meted out on wrongdoers over time until the reaction is out of all possible proportion to the crime itself. Each step can be justified with "well, obviously the last time wasn't enough of a deterrent to keep this sort of thing from happening again."

JeenLeen
2013-08-30, 10:34 AM
I think the best character like this is one who was originally good (maybe a little cruel against evil, but good). He still acts basically the same, still has the same values, but he's started to see those he use to associate with good as evil, or maybe he's seeing the root of evil to be society as a whole.

So he says he's willing to do what society calls 'evil' in order to fix society. The real evil is the corruption, starvation, etc. that society fosters. So he has to purge it all. He's still good, still working for good, and the end result will be a better world.

(Note that this is not exclusive with insanity or ideology, as noted by nedz. Indeed, it may rely upon it, but I think a more compelling character will be sane.)

Sith_Happens
2013-08-30, 10:48 AM
"You're either with me or against me." Probably the single mindset with the greatest potential for justifying evil.

Rhynn
2013-08-30, 10:53 AM
"Evil" people who are not on the Ted Bundy level have a goal, and are willing to go further for it than is moral. Values become secondary to goals. Walter White, Vic Mackey & Shane Vendrell, any real-world political example you care to think of...

What the goals are isn't that relevant, frankly.

The rationalization is pretty much universally "this has to be done," "this is the only thing I can do," "I can't give up now," and so on. You give yourself up bit by bit, and once you see how far you're gone, it's too late, and you have to try to come out on the other side... but odds aren't good you will emerge the same, if at all.


Play Spec Ops: The Line for a great example of how someone well-meaning can go completely evil, while still thinking he's doing good and deluding himself by blaming everything bad that happened on other factors.

That game messes with your head so bad. :smallfurious: I didn't even think about firing into the air... it is amazingly tightly-crafted, up to and including the loading screens that start mocking you in less and less subtle ways as the game goes on. ("Do you feel like a hero yet?")

The Shield and Breaking Bad are also great examples of how this sort of "justifying evil" thing gets more and more out of control, and the protagonist gets more and more inextricably wrapped up in the wrongs they've done.

CarpeGuitarrem
2013-08-30, 11:24 AM
"I must be strong to fight evil."

Hyena
2013-08-30, 11:54 AM
"I have no choice. Either I have to make hard decisions, or everything was for nothing."

Morgarion
2013-08-30, 12:19 PM
The Shield and Breaking Bad are also great examples of how this sort of "justifying evil" thing gets more and more out of control, and the protagonist gets more and more inextricably wrapped up in the wrongs they've done.

I think Walter White is a great example of rationalizing evil behavior to make yourself out to be a good guy. The best part is that it's hard to really pinpoint precisely when he becomes evil. I guess that might have something to do with the nature of evil and how insidious it is.

AtlanteanTroll
2013-08-30, 12:31 PM
Walter "Heisenberg" White. End of thread.

Dr. Yes
2013-08-30, 12:55 PM
How do you rationalize a descent into evil? Be a player character. You'll be slaughtering tribes of sentient creatures and defiling ancient tombs before you know it. :smallamused:

ScubaGoomba
2013-08-30, 01:03 PM
For an after-the-fact justification, also consider Ozymandias from the Watchmen.

SquidOfSquids
2013-08-30, 01:18 PM
Make the character blame himself for an action that had horrible unintended consequences. Then have the character feel like he needs to do everything possible to "fix" his mistake. Pretty soon, you'll have the character falling straight down the classic slippery slope of evilness.

Basically, take Vaarsuvius and change the details.

Reddish Mage
2013-08-30, 01:32 PM
If you want the guy to be a truly evil villain its important that the rationalization is shockingly inadequate.

Since you want it to be a slow slide it should start slowly, imperceptibly so that by the time the PCs are on to your villain, his EVIL plans have already in an very advanced stage and will require quite some work to clean up.

Perhaps something underhanded in combat, or a very justifiable reason for an mild wrongdoing. Perhaps he is a necromancer who occasionally uses evil magic, perhaps he is a little too intimidating and impatient with captured villains. Perhaps this is a part of his personality but nothing that will set off alarm bells. Then maybe he does a few things that'll set off a twinge but with a very good justification. Something the players are likely to shrug off (and if they challenge him he can point to how justifiable it is and how he's on their side).

By the time he reveals his incredibly wicked plan to his "friends" it'll be too late to stop him without some serious sacrifice.

BlckDv
2013-08-30, 01:32 PM
Protecting the Innocent gone awry.

Example: A prince is born in a kingdom at war with a rival known to use assassins and subtle methods, so the king appoints the destined-to-fall guy as a "special guardian" to insure the rival is not able to attack the prince. Growing up under absolute protection and isolated from the risks and socializing impact of normal life, the prince has become a total narcissist and possible sociopath. He progressively manipulates the obligation of the guardian such that to fulfill his duties he must take increasingly immoral actions (evict children from public parks so the prince can play in them, steal back a personal item the prince "lost" to prevent its use in hostile magic, silence a servant who knows the prince is taking a rare medicine that could be compromised, kill the former guard who once trained the prince to fight and is now planning to visit relatives in another country where he could be subverted, and so on), which amuses the prince. The Guardians loyalty to the crown and long term slow exposure to the changes blinds him to the underlying issues as he remains convinced that acting to protect the prince is noble and honorable. If the war ends and the situation continues out of force of habit, the dichotomy is even more stark as the "duty" he fulfills has become redundant but he does not realize it, robbing his evil acts of even the veneer of justification.

A very simple twist on this is simply the too-loving parent, trying to protect their "misunderstood" child they refuse to see as evil.

wolfdreams01
2013-08-30, 01:49 PM
In my (steampunk) game, I have this theme going with my central villain - a green dragon who's the CEO of a technology corporation. Using lobbyists and financial pressure, he's managed to get the government fully invested into his military-industrial complex, and finally managed to trigger a world war (with the PCs unintentional help, of course). His end goal is to annihilate/conquer the rest of the empire which his/their country used to belong to. Of course, he doesn't mention the end goal to anybody.

The PCs are (for the most part) onboard with these imperialistic plans, and even view him as a patron (though once in a while, some of them have a crisis of conscience). The way the dragon makes himself appear sympathetic is as follows.

1) Egalitarian Ideals
The PCs country is a democracy, whereas most of the rest of the world consists of monarchies or oligarchies. Therefore he can frame his imperialist ambitions as "spreading democracy." Of course, the fact that said democracy is completely under his thumb due to legislative capture is something that he doesn't bring up.

2) Kindness to Allies
When the dragon encounters useful agents, he makes sure to provide them with the magic items and tools they need to perform the mission he assigns them (which of course he frames as being "for the good of the state"). The more useful they are, the most generous he becomes. Thus when somebody accuses him of evil or unscrupulous behavior, he basically says "Why would you say that? Have I not been fair and honest in all my dealings with you? Didn't I save your lives the first time we met each other? So why are you believing all these other people over me, when I've done so much for you?"

3) Previously Victimized
The reason the dragon wants to destroy the empire is because 1800 years ago, the other dragons of the empire tried to kill him because he wanted to encourage technological progress and flouted their ancient traditions. During his escape, he was permanently maimed, losing an eye, a wing, and a limb. Currently he has mechanical prosthetics as replacements, but these were only developed in the last hundred years, so he's spent 1700 years as a cripple. In other words, he has a legitimate reason to seek vengeance, and is sympathetic in that regard. It's just that the vengeance he seeks is utterly disproportionate to his wrong.

4) Law-abiding
Even though he is very powerful, he never lifts a claw directly against his opponents, but generally uses the law to his advantage. If he doesn't like somebody in the PCs kingdom, he'll send lawyers to sue them, have the bank repossess their mortgage, or have a less scrupulous agent of his get their children addicted to magic potions. If he needs to crush somebody outside of that kingdom, he gradually pressures the politicians to declare war against the land his rivals are in, then sends the PCs against his enemies as a legitimate military action. When villains are obeying all the laws of society, it's hard to justify moving against them.

5) Occasionally does good deeds
When the dragon first met the PCs, he saved their lives, and from time to time, he sends them on altruistic missions, like taking down an underworld boss that the police don't have enough . In other words, he's been demonstrated to be completely willing to dirty his hands (er, claws) if it's for a good cause. Seeing these obviously "good" parts of his agenda muddies the waters, so that when the PCs see an "evil" part of his agenda, they think it is part of a larger scheme that will benefit everybody in the long run.

JusticeZero
2013-08-30, 03:49 PM
A good guy, working for a good cause. Then the cause - or at least their position in it - starts to creep in a troubling direction, but they are so much surrounded by the organizational culture and the dogma of the group that they don't notice.

Flickerdart
2013-08-30, 03:53 PM
"Greater good" is morally ambiguous, which can be interpreted as Neutral. Instead, give him a completely routine mission (maybe he's getting back at the BBEG for his parents or something) and gradually have him sacrifice more and more for it. At first, only out of convenience, but eventually just out of spite.

5a Violista
2013-08-30, 04:58 PM
Here's a balance one:

The villain believes that the amount of Good possible in the world is limited exactly proportional to the amount of Evil in the world. Thus, in order to increase the amount of Good in the world, someone has to do more Evil. It might as well be him who does it; that way, he can control exactly how much Evil is done and to whom the Evil is done, and he keeps it concentrated all around him so the Evil isn't spread all across the world willy-nilly. Therefore, (in his opinion), the world is filled with more Good. Q.E.D.

Rhynn
2013-08-30, 07:48 PM
I think Walter White is a great example of rationalizing evil behavior to make yourself out to be a good guy. The best part is that it's hard to really pinpoint precisely when he becomes evil. I guess that might have something to do with the nature of evil and how insidious it is.

Abso-friggin'-lutely. I think most viewers, like myself, find themselves frowning at some point around season 3 going, "Wait, he's the bad guy now."

Heck, the show probably even has dimensions similar to Spec Ops: The Line, where it's messing with your assumptions. We're inculcated to think that the guy who ballsily blows up a drug boss is the hero, but he's not: he's a dangerously desperate man. Killing people isn't good or heroic just because those people were more or less "bad," much less just because they were opposed to you.

NichG
2013-08-30, 08:02 PM
The absolutist: "Everyone has committed some kind of wrong. I'm just helping them atone."

The My Way or the Highway: "There's this plan, see. I believe in the plan. You're a good man - its a shame that you don't see that."

The Promise-Keeper: "I have sworn to obey my liege's orders and protect the line. Once this was a joyous task, where I could help people. Now it is darker. But my oath is my soul - without it I am nothing."

The Bigot: "Goblins aren't people. It doesn't matter what you do to them. I need to practice my swordsmanship somewhere, after all."

The Truth Will Destroy Your Mind: "I have seen through the lies we call this reality. Life and death are not what they seem. You call this murder, but I call it setting them free."

The Penitent: "This task must be done. It is too important to allow to fail. I will not spare any measure in pursuit of this. I will not take any risk that could stop it. I will atone afterwards with my life and soul if need be."

The Moral Authority: "Its not evil unless I say it is. I am in charge here, I am where the buck stops. I can do no wrong."

Gnoman
2013-08-30, 08:22 PM
"Those who have power are not only justified in using it, they are obligated to. For none can strive to become what they have not seen, and there can be no growth without fear."

Winter_Wolf
2013-08-30, 08:30 PM
Roughly paraphrasing from a place I can't recall, "evil never sees itself as evil."

Also called, "for the right reasons." It doesn't have to be necessarily "for the greater good" as much as the end justifies the means meets tough love.

"If I don't slaughter a hundred of your village, however will the rest of you learn from their mistakes?"

Jerthanis
2013-08-30, 09:01 PM
Play Spec Ops: The Line for a great example of how someone well-meaning can go completely evil, while still thinking he's doing good and deluding himself by blaming everything bad that happened on other factors.

Mentioning Spec Ops actually reminds me of another possible avenue to rationalizing evil.

Numbness. Perhaps a military commander has fought too desperate a war for too long, unable to give any quarter for so long that he no longer knows how, and it doesn't even occur to him that when he orders the torching of villages, it's going to cause horrible suffering, to him it's just a figure on a map.

Arkhosia
2013-08-30, 09:09 PM
The Miko Approach:"You are responsible for EVERYTHING bad that's happened this day! I will follow you to the ends of the earth if I must to let justice be served."

AttilaTheGeek
2013-08-30, 09:25 PM
Wow, talk about overwhelming response. Let me give a little background.


Before any of this, I'd work this out with the player in question, because messing with a player character like this without their consent smacks of the worst kind of railroading.


It sounded to me like an NPC, but maybe that should be clarified.

It's for a character of my own, but an NPC in a different game is headed down a similarly slippery slope.


Without details on what one is exactly doing and how it's really hard to tell much, possibilities are countless....

Is he someone with position of any serious power, or just a dude?

Is he running a bank/cantor, or is he a mercenary?

My PC is a Paladin // Bladebound Magus in Pathfinder gestalt. He's a fairly happy guy, all about defending the weak and all that jazz, but his sentient sword is the opposite kind of paladin, and it's focused on hunting down evildoers at any cost.

The other NPC is the party's commanding officer in a situation that's similar to Spec Ops: The Line but they have to decide when to refuse the orders. This one, however, will be a lot less subtle. While being able to inspire emotion in my players is good, I don't want anyone to get too emotional.

crazyhedgewizrd
2013-08-30, 11:42 PM
i like it no one said the most obvious example of an rationalizing evil person, It's the player who thinks they can do anything without consequences and complains if you do anything negative to them.

Samshiir
2013-08-31, 02:19 AM
Protecting the Innocent gone awry.


A very simple twist on this is simply the too-loving parent, trying to protect their "misunderstood" child they refuse to see as evil.

I have done this recently, and it worked out very well. The child was innocent, but was possessed by a demon, and the group had to make a choice: Kill the innocent child and the demon along with him? Or spare the innocent child and possibly let the demon free? Moreso, what to do with the mother? She is just trying to protect her son- or at least the portion of him that is not possessed by a demon.

I love putting my players in morally gray situations, especially if there is a Paladin in the group.

Hi Attila, :smalltongue:

TheOOB
2013-08-31, 02:37 AM
"This Way of the Open Palm is not without its hidden dangers, despite the best of intentions."

Jade Empire talks about how a "good" person can become evil. For example, if they use the treat of force to prevent evil from ever happening, what makes them different from a tyrant.

The thing to remember is that everybody is the hero of their own story.

Risking invoking Godwin's Law, Hitler though what he was doing was the best for his people. He was horribly, terribly, misguided, but in his mind he was the good guy.

falloutimperial
2013-08-31, 05:35 AM
Create a situation in which there are two separate groups, one of which contains your villain. If the groups are small, villainy can be achieved in an hour. Should they be nations, a few years of vileness is sufficient. Over a lifetime, anyone with dedication could attempt to swindle the world.

Prince Raven
2013-08-31, 05:39 AM
I have done this recently, and it worked out very well. The child was innocent, but was possessed by a demon, and the group had to make a choice: Kill the innocent child and the demon along with him? Or spare the innocent child and possibly let the demon free? Moreso, what to do with the mother? She is just trying to protect her son- or at least the portion of him that is not possessed by a demon.

I love putting my players in morally gray situations, especially if there is a Paladin in the group.

Daemon? EXTERMINATUS! (http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Exterminatus)
It's the only way to be sure.

Hyena
2013-08-31, 06:22 AM
I have done this recently, and it worked out very well. The child was innocent, but was possessed by a demon, and the group had to make a choice: Kill the innocent child and the demon along with him? Or spare the innocent child and possibly let the demon free? Moreso, what to do with the mother? She is just trying to protect her son- or at least the portion of him that is not possessed by a demon.


Plot courtesy of Dragon Age Origins?

Rumpus
2013-08-31, 06:57 AM
Putting the PCs in a tough situation where the stakes are extremely high and they can't see any way to win except to make a deal with the (sometimes literal) devil. To avoid looking like railroading, you need to give them options early in the story that might have avoided this situation. However, through their own choices, they're between a rock and a hard place. This happens to Harry Dresden a lot.

Bigotry is an easy way to slip into evil behavior. If you assume bad things about another group, it may not occur to you that what you are doing counts as evil. See the Goblins webcomic.

You were in the middle of doing an illegal deal, and the other party tried to kill you. You wound up with the upper hand, and he's unconscious. If he lives, he's definitely going to kill you, and probably your whole family. Because you were doing something illegal, you can't go to the authorities. Breaking Bad.

Hard men (usually) making hard choices: the captive knows where downtown the nuke is hidden, are you willing to let it go off instead of torturing him for information? If he holds out, are you willing to torture his daughter in front of him instead? This happens to Jack Bauer three or four times a day.

AttilaTheGeek
2013-08-31, 07:37 AM
I have done this recently, and it worked out very well. The child was innocent, but was possessed by a demon, and the group had to make a choice: Kill the innocent child and the demon along with him? Or spare the innocent child and possibly let the demon free? Moreso, what to do with the mother? She is just trying to protect her son- or at least the portion of him that is not possessed by a demon.

I love putting my players in morally gray situations, especially if there is a Paladin in the group.

Hi Attila, :smalltongue:

Hey Samshiir, long time no see. :smalltongue:

I'm playing a Paladin in the party in which this happened, but I started the thread to ask about a different paladin of mine. Yes, I know, I'm hooked on the paladin class. In this scenario, we exorcised the demon and then I made sure the child was spared. An NPC wanted to kill the kid (the NPC has come back, but we still don't know what his deal is), but the kid didn't have to die.

Stephen_E
2013-08-31, 07:59 AM
One of the best RL is basically wjhat a previous poster called "Moarl Authority" or what I call "Exceptionalism".

This is the belief that a person or group of persons is "Special" so the rules don;t really apply the same way. People who apply this will often apply this on a "Country" or "Race" wide level on theory but when pushed start shrinking the category as others who disagree with them slip out of the "Exceptional" group.

The basic process is that moral definitions are based on "Who" rather "Waht" and a person is/isn't moral based on who they are (or the group they belong to) rather than what they do. In practice many players run this automatically with the group been "Player Characters". I've had a player tell me my definitions of "Good" are unreasonable because under it most PC's aren't "Good".

Threadnaught
2013-08-31, 02:37 PM
I wish to make the world strong, you will thank me for it if you survive. If you perish then you were too frail to deserve to live in the new world.

You should be thanking me, I made you strong. You are no longer the feeble creature you were before.

The world is corrupt and in need of cleansing. I will guide it to a greater future by destroying the weak and the chains they use to control it.