Roleplaying On the nature of enlightened evil [Archive]

Heliomance

2017-10-31, 07:25 AM

Before I start... Red Fel, Red Fel, Red Fel

So, I've been musing on the topic of evil, enlightened self-interest, and how a sufficiently competent villain is fairly indistinguishable from a benevolent ruler. I have a character that is thoroughly amoral, and places precisely no value on the sanctity of human life except in so far as it can be monetised. Despite that, though, she greatly prefers not to have to kill - killing someone is such a waste, and merely shows that you weren't competent enough to convert a liability into an asset. If you kill someone, then (absent necromancy, admittedly), you can extract no further use from them. Finding the correct leverage to make them into an asset means they start generating value for you, which is preferable by far.

Similarly, war is only profitable from a narrow, short-sighted point of view. International co-operation and good relations are far better in the long term - not because the loss of life in war is morally regrettable and should be avoided, but because you can't sell things easily to a nation you're at war with.

Consider a slum district full of people in extreme poverty. Some evil rulers might prefer to raze such a thing, kill all the inhabitants, and burn it to the ground. But that's an expense, and won't actually generate any value to offset it. Also, the slum will be back in a few years. If instead you invest in a comprehensive uplift programme designed to provide jobs and get people set up securely, then you have a considerably higher initial outlay, but in five or ten years' time those worthless slumdwellers will be productive members of society, generating value and profit instead of simply being a drain on the city, and that will - in the long term - pay back your initial investment many times over.

So "good" and benevolent actions don't seem to require any empathy or concern for other people - sufficient long-term thinking, ambition, rationality, and willingness to work through ramifications and consequences will, so far as I can see, produce a very similar result.

What do you all think? How would a realm run on such lines differ from a more normally "Good" civilisation? How would it appear from the outside? From the inside?

2D8HP

2017-10-31, 07:33 AM

From:
Feet of Clay by Terry Pratchett

'They think they want good government and justice for all, Vimes, yet what is it they really crave, deep in their hearts? Only that things go on as normal and tomorrow is pretty much like today.'

- Lord Vetinari

http://www.ealasaid.com/fan/vetinari/images/vetport.jpg

MaxiDuRaritry

2017-10-31, 07:38 AM

[edit]I just have one thing to say:

http://www.ealasaid.com/fan/vetinari/images/vetport.jpgHah! Vetinari'd!

Lord Raziere

2017-10-31, 07:46 AM

the difference is when you put them in situations where utilitarian concerns are moot or not important.

the enlightened evil ruler you mentioned would only be so competent because of their mix of selfishness and long term greater good thinking. what happens when you put them in a situation as simple as getting a cat out of a tree? they don't care, because they have more important things to do than that. its not worth the cost when they could be doing something more utilitarian to benefit themselves.

I mean sure it benefits his public image to do something like that, but it wouldn't it benefit his image more to do something more impersonal and grandiose? such as a charity event? there is simply no point to getting a cat stuck out of a tree. a stereotypical example to be sure, but the difference is basically that when the cameras are off and there is no benefit to be had to doing something, the enlightened evil guy won't do it.

similarly, no matter how enlightened someone is, no one has infinite patience, energy or emotional control. everyone has bad days where their control slips up, they get tired and/or they get frustrated. thus you might see differences in attitude between good and enlightened evil when the mask inevitably slips off. though one wonders if somebody so "enlightened evil" isn't in fact some form of Neutral instead. an enlightened selfishness ruler might in fact be a good representation of True Neutral as they do good acts for selfish reasons.

khadgar567

2017-10-31, 07:52 AM

long term evil of then have problems from the get go like what to do when you fulfill your ambitions. Most villains decide to rest until good guys create a rebellion so they can crush but your idea looks like getting close to becoming benevolent good dictator of kingdom which not the red fel's plan of long term evil empire. You want to upgrade the slums right but where is the evil portion in there you are puling loyal paladins work there kiddo. Better more red fell like idea would be forced conscription of people of the slums for slightly higher vages so they have hope for better future but they still get milked by your guys. You dont want to stop crime in slums you want your top guys to be in control of gangs keeping slums in trouble so your police can get surgical strikes to your opposition. you dont want to open free clinic in neighborhood unless you are looking desperate individuals volunteering your unethical projects with hope to leave slums. red fels evil always have large plan with successive xanatos chess like plans so you always at top not your accidentally appointed Parliament full of rebels ready to gut you like kobold shish kebab.

Frozen_Feet

2017-10-31, 07:57 AM

Similarly, war is only profitable from a narrow, short-sighted point of view. International co-operation and good relations are far better in the long term - not because the loss of life in war is morally regrettable and should be avoided, but because you can't sell things easily to a nation you're at war with.

Quite the opposite. As long as you, yourself, can exist outside the warring nations, war is quite profitable. You just need to sell the right things - namely, weapons. Remember to root for whoever's the underdog at any given moment, giving them discounts, or even free stuff, so that none of the involved sides can get the final edge over the other.

Sure, if this goes on for decades or centuries, you will leech the involved nations dry, ruin their environment, and make life for generations of people in there living Hell. What do you care? You don't live there. Even as the absolute number of resources plummet, you are increasingly well off, because what few resources there are get concentrated on your bank account. Eventually, you will have enough to basically GTFO and retire comfortably as other people are left to clear the wreckage.

The error in thinking that good people make is thinking that "long term" somehow includes wellfare of other people. It doesn't. When you're evil with not empathy, there is a very limited number of people you give a crap about, namely yourself. And many of the easiest ways to secure longterm wellfare for a lone person, or a small group, is to drain resources from a larger group. Once the evil person can live comfortably as long as they want, surplus ceases to matter. "Generating value" is for chumps and slaves, one without empathy doesn't get any increased value from the wellfare of random person N+1, so there never is any trickling down. The rest of the world can burn while they sip martinis.

khadgar567

2017-10-31, 08:02 AM

The rest of the world can burn while they sip martinis.
QFT mate that's what red fel like villain thinks.

Lord Raziere

2017-10-31, 08:03 AM

Quite the opposite. As long as you, yourself, can exist outside the warring nations, war is quite profitable. You just need to sell the right things - namely, weapons. Remember to root for whoever's the underdog at any given moment, giving them discounts, or even free stuff, so that none of the involved sides can get the final edge over the other.

Sure, if this goes on for decades or centuries, you will leech the involved nations dry, ruin their environment, and make life for generations of people in there living Hell. What do you care? You don't live there. Even as the absolute number of resources plummet, you are increasingly well off, because what few resources there are get concentrated on your bank account. Eventually, you will have enough to basically GTFO and retire comfortably as other people are left to clear the wreckage.

The error in thinking that good people make is thinking that "long term" somehow includes wellfare of other people. It doesn't. When you're evil with not empathy, there is a very limited number of people you give a crap about, namely yourself. And many of the easiest ways to secure longterm wellfare for a lone person, or a small group, is to drain resources from a larger group. Once the evil person can live comfortably as long as they want, surplus ceases to matter. "Generating value" is for chumps and slaves, one without empathy doesn't get any increased value from the wellfare of random person N+1, so there never is any trickling down. The rest of the world can burn while they sip martinis.

Yup. Exactly. True evil would opt out the moment they don't need to care about anyone else and just do whatever they want. the enlightened selfish ruler he speaks of, sounds pretty True Neutral to me, as they are still maintaining and giving back to society in some manner when they could just amass enough wealth to the point where they no longer need to care then just sit back and watch all those fools clean up while being relieved that they don't need to pretend to care anymore.

Heliomance

2017-10-31, 08:09 AM

You want to upgrade the slums right but where is the evil portion in there you are puling loyal paladins work there kiddo.

Evil isn't a goal in and of itself. You don't wake up and go "Ooh, I need to fill my quota of evil today!"

Upgrading the slums is not an evil act, I'm not trying to claim it is. By most reckonings, it's a Good act. My point is that it doesn't have to be motivated by a Good alignment, it doesn't have to come from a place of caring about the residents of the slums. It can come from a desire to simply make the city work more efficiently - morals may be for chumps, but treating your workforce well is good business sense.

The character I propose isn't evil because they like to kick puppies and torture people for the lulz, they're evil because they are unburdened by a moral compass and don't consider human life to have inherent value. My point is that they can still treat people well because it works better, rather than because treating people well is the right thing to do.

Lord Raziere

2017-10-31, 08:12 AM

The character I propose isn't evil because they like to kick puppies and torture people for the lulz, they're evil because they are unburdened by a moral compass and don't consider human life to have inherent value. My point is that they can still treat people well because it works better, rather than because treating people well is the right thing to do.

and as soon as they don't need to, to get the wealth they want? Then they go screw off and let everyone suffer while the enjoy themselves because they no longer serve any use to them. its inherently temporary.

khadgar567

2017-10-31, 08:18 AM

Evil isn't a goal in and of itself. You don't wake up and go "Ooh, I need to fill my quota of evil today!"

Upgrading the slums is not an evil act, I'm not trying to claim it is. By most reckonings, it's a Good act. My point is that it doesn't have to be motivated by a Good alignment, it doesn't have to come from a place of caring about the residents of the slums. It can come from a desire to simply make the city work more efficiently - morals may be for chumps, but treating your workforce well is good business sense.

The character I propose isn't evil because they like to kick puppies and torture people for the lulz, they're evil because they are unburdened by a moral compass and don't consider human life to have inherent value. My point is that they can still treat people well because it works better, rather than because treating people well is the right thing to do.
I think you dont understand rest of my post just upgrading slums may be good act but villain like red fel's caliber need to gain something from it like hopeful fools to sign in your army so they can help their poor family in slums which you are keeping it as slums not in same level where your common loyal folk lives.
if they want to get enough power so they can live higher standarts they either work for you which they are or they lose every thing they have and survive out of your walls which most of the monsters are ready to make example of them ( bonus points if monsters work for you to)

SangoProduction

2017-10-31, 08:24 AM

Yup. Exactly. True evil would opt out the moment they don't need to care about anyone else and just do whatever they want. the enlightened selfish ruler he speaks of, sounds pretty True Neutral to me, as they are still maintaining and giving back to society in some manner when they could just amass enough wealth to the point where they no longer need to care then just sit back and watch all those fools clean up while being relieved that they don't need to pretend to care anymore.

Basically this.

Just as a psychopath (or whatever the correct term is) can pretend to have emotions for the purpose of getting what they want from people, Evil can (and should) pretend to be good, in so long as it benefits them. Once it stops benefitting them, or they don't believe there to be any further benefit to be had, then they will stop.

For the slums example, if it would cost 2 million gold to raise the slums, but the projected tax revenue increase (that could be directly siphoned off without public opinion being hurt) is about 2 thousand a year, he'd probably go "eh...no. Maybe I can set up a token charity for PR."

EDIT: And yeah, as khadgar567 said, you also lose the whole "I'm desperate to help those I love to be free from poverty. I'll do anything, sire," angle.

Heliomance

2017-10-31, 08:29 AM

and as soon as they don't need to, to get the wealth they want? Then they go screw off and let everyone suffer while the enjoy themselves because they no longer serve any use to them. its inherently temporary.

If their core desire is personal wealth, yes. There are other core desires that produce less temporary results. Immortality through legacy, perhaps, the desire to be long remembered as a great ruler and to leave an empire that will remain for a thousand years. In a more modern/cyberpunk setting, maybe their core desire is loyalty to their corporation, increasing the profitability of the corporation as a whole and generating value for the shareholders. Maybe they loathe the concept of waste and inefficiency and see the existence of unproductive citizens as a personal affront. Maybe they do want wealth and success, but the way they measure it is not by the size of their personal vault, but by the glory of their empire - having the greatest, richest civilisation as a way to lord it over all the other rulers.

Personal wealth is such an unimaginative goal.

SangoProduction

2017-10-31, 08:32 AM

If their core desire is personal wealth, yes. There are other core desires that produce less temporary results. Immortality through legacy, perhaps, the desire to be long remembered as a great ruler and to leave an empire that will remain for a thousand years. In a more modern/cyberpunk setting, maybe their core desire is loyalty to their corporation, increasing the profitability of the corporation as a whole and generating value for the shareholders. Maybe they loathe the concept of waste and inefficiency and see the existence of unproductive citizens as a personal affront. Maybe they do want wealth and success, but the way they measure it is not by the size of their personal vault, but by the glory of their empire - having the greatest, richest civilisation as a way to lord it over all the other rulers.

Personal wealth is such an unimaginative goal.

Personal wealth is a part of personal well being. Primarily, in that it buys whatever you desire. Evil cares about themselves. Wealth is rarely if ever a goal in and of itself. Just like power. It's an ends to a means. Caring about entities that are not yourself (that isn't a group of close friends) as an equal (let alone superior) probably indicates you aren't Evil.

This "efficiency at all costs" guy sounds like a prototypical Lawful Neutral.

Geddy2112

2017-10-31, 08:32 AM

Basically, you want to be Machiavelli, which is a really grey area between true neutral and neutral evil. The former in theory, the latter often in execution.

To quote Machiavelli, "The end justifies the means". To a true evil character, the means can be almost anything, including capital E evil. It can even be puppy kicking, tying women to railroad tracks, eating orphans, or other cartoonish evil. What makes enlightened evil different than stupid evil is that enlightened evil is and totally would do those things, if they were needed. They can sleep just as soundly as stupid evil after doing them. However, they see that those acts have no value to any greater goal and often get you killed. Enlightened evil knows that evil is not about filling a quota of evil acts, and won't do them unless they need to. However, any evil is on the table.

As far as the slums, Machiavelli said that a ruler should be feared and loved, but if they must choose, choose fear. Enlightened evil wants good PR, but also people to know at the end of the day they can bring down the hammer of god, be it the form of Jack booted stormtroopers, assassinations, or outright burning part of the city to the ground while they fiddle.

MaxiDuRaritry

2017-10-31, 08:33 AM

Personal wealth is such an unimaginative goal.And yet it represents a real, tangible benefit for the self, as it is a definite measure of power over the world around you. Those with money have power, which is a very literal thing in a world where WBL is by far the most powerful force multiplier outside of actual spellcasting.

NecroDancer

2017-10-31, 08:36 AM

So your basically making a D&d version of Lord Vetinari? I approve greatly. Some tropes to check out are

1. Genre Savy
2. Ventinari Job Security
3. Magnificent Bastard
4. Anti Villian
5. Pragmatic Villainy

Heliomance

2017-10-31, 08:40 AM

To quote Machiavelli, "The end justifies the means". To a true evil character, the means can be almost anything, including capital E evil. It can even be puppy kicking, tying women to railroad tracks, eating orphans, or other cartoonish evil. What makes enlightened evil different than stupid evil is that enlightened evil is and totally would do those things, if they were needed. They can sleep just as soundly as stupid evil after doing them. However, they see that those acts have no value to any greater goal and often get you killed. Enlightened evil knows that evil is not about filling a quota of evil acts, and won't do them unless they need to. However, any evil is on the table.

This. If your reaction to wholesale slaughter is "What an irritating waste of potential assets", rather than "What a terrible waste of human life", then I'm pretty sure you're evil, regardless of your actions. The proposed character has no moral objection to any of the heinous acts suggested in this thread, they just don't believe that they're useful, sensible, or efficient.

An arcane ritual requiring you to sacrifice an orphan child in exchange for great power is an option, it's just the cost/benefit analysis of doing it includes the PR hit if the public finds out you did this, and the cost of trying to cover up the fact that you did it.

Geddy2112

2017-10-31, 08:44 AM

This. If your reaction to wholesale slaughter is "What an irritating waste of potential assets", rather than "What a terrible waste of human life", then I'm pretty sure you're evil, regardless of your actions. The proposed character has no moral objection to any of the heinous acts suggested in this thread, they just don't believe that they're useful, sensible, or efficient.

Sometimes, those actions are useful, sensible, and efficient all in one. Not every country or tribe will bend to the will of the conqueror and integrate peacefully. If you have to wipe out an enemy, you can turn the brutality up to 11 for an example to those who would resist. You have the carrot of your empire, and those who have joined and how great their lives are. The stick is that you will raze the city to the ground if they refuse to submit.

Certainly seeing people as assets is evil right there. But you have to be ready to use evil, and if needed, get ham with it.

Bonzai

2017-10-31, 09:18 AM

I created a campaign sort of on this subject. A cult of the dragon necromancer built a tower near an iron mining camp, and would periodically trade with them. It prospered, and grew bigger and became a small mining town. The necromancer was left alone and had access to better trade so he was fine with it. An Orc horde rolled in, refugees swelled the camp even bigger. The Orcs attacked. Annoyed by the disturbance, the necromancer slaughtered the orcs. The people begged the necromancer for protection, and pledged themselves to serve and obey him. The Necromancer agreed.

Now that it was HIS town, he set about making it something worthy of his attention. Undead patrolled the area and performed labor. Walls and fortifications were built. Crops were planted. Eventually trade roads with undead guards protecting commerce. More refugees swelled in, and it became a proper city. He protected them from further Orc incursions. The city became a safe haven in a sea of savage orcs.

Martial law was in effect. Laws were fair, but brutally enforced. The worst transgressors were turned into undead slave labor. Yet the people both loved and feared him, because he kept them safe and prospering.

Now enter the party. The Necromancer is unquestionably evil, and actively working on a plan of world domination. However if they simply go in and slay him, then the orcs would surely wipe out the innocent townspeople. What do they do?

Segev

2017-10-31, 09:36 AM

Quite the opposite. As long as you, yourself, can exist outside the warring nations, war is quite profitable. You just need to sell the right things - namely, weapons.

It really depends on how long-term you plan. If you are short-lived and don't care what you leave in your wake, then the short-sighted evil route might well get YOU more wealth and comfort over your life span than the long-term prosperity and building up of cooperative nation-states. If you're longer-lived, however, you will find that the rising tide lifts all boats, and even if in the short-term you're not getting as much wealth, and in the long-term you're not the wealthiest fish in your money bin, your overall wealth and standard of living is higher when you promote peace and trade. It fosters more efficient uses of resources and the ratcheting-up effect, so that middle class living in the future is better than wealthy living in the past.

As to "the mask slipping," unless you're of a flavor of evil that gets its jollies out of tormenting others, it's not really any bigger risk than for a good person who's having a bad day and might lash out in anger.

The evil person who doesn't enjoy killing people might order somebody thrown out of their presence, or hit them, or something...but so might the good and noble king who's in a bad mood and driven to lose his temper.

Zanos

2017-10-31, 09:59 AM

Described character is 100% Evil. Even a character that legitimately loves his people and wants the best for them but uses Evil means to provide security and prosperity, however necessary those means are, is Evil. D&D morality is completely absolute on this point, the ends never justify the means as far as your cosmic morality is concerned.

However, there is a conflation of Evil = Bad or Evil = Unwanted. If your king provides unrivaled security and prosperity to the kingdom but does so by doing horrible, brutal things to traitors and rival kingdoms, do you really care? Probably not. People have limited empathy for those that they never meet and probably never will. If you don't believe me you probably have a smartphone in your pocket that was made by something that very closely resembles slave labor.

It really depends on how long-term you plan. If you are short-lived and don't care what you leave in your wake, then the short-sighted evil route might well get YOU more wealth and comfort over your life span than the long-term prosperity and building up of cooperative nation-states. If you're longer-lived, however, you will find that the rising tide lifts all boats, and even if in the short-term you're not getting as much wealth, and in the long-term you're not the wealthiest fish in your money bin, your overall wealth and standard of living is higher when you promote peace and trade.
Eh, it depends. Wealth only commands power when there's disparity. Overall quality of life improving has more to do with the advancement of technology and production practices than wealth.

And really you can make tremendous profit from going to war yourself, depending on how your economy is structured. Importantly though war secures a growing kingdom territory to expand into and greater natural resources to exploit to fuel growth. Having complete control over a resource is definitely better than having to trade for it, so war can be worth it depending on your enemies strength and how much attention they can afford to give you.

Red Fel

2017-10-31, 10:05 AM

I read all of these posts, think of how pragmatic and pro-Evil everyone is, and I realize just how successful an influence I've had.

Hush. Let me have this.

Anyway, there's not much for me to add that hasn't been added. On the surface, the kingdom of a long-sighted Evil ruler with enlightened, rational self-interest will be mostly indistinguishable from a benevolent dictatorship. True, laws will be draconian in some ways and punishments will likely be severe, but on the whole life will probably be a positive, or at least non-negative, experience for those who keep their heads down, their mouths closed, and who OBEY.

That's the surface, though. What matters is what you can't see - the ruler's motivations. As others have noted, his reason for providing affordable housing isn't altruism towards the poor, it's to eliminate the crime-ridden slums that create disruption and dissent. His reason for providing healthcare isn't to ensure longer, happy lives, but to guarantee healthy, strong workers and soldiers. His reason for offering solid education isn't enlightenment, but indoctrination. His reason for bringing these positives into the lives of his citizens isn't that he cares about them, but because he wants their worship and adulation. He wants healthy, productive citizens who adore him, who are willing to toil and fight and die in his name.

His people construct monuments in his image, not only because they love him, but because they rightfully fear him and he commands it. His people chant songs in his honor, not only out of respect, but because the State demands their daily rituals of compliance and submission. They live each day knowing who rules over them, showing him deference and reverence, in part because he does good for them, and in part because of what will happen if they don't properly acknowledge it.

The enlightened self-interest of an Evil ruler involves a confluence of factors. There's living a life of comfort and power, true. There is also creating the image of a life of comfort and power - it promotes an impression of strength, but also a model to which people can aspire and which inspires their admiration. There's creating a strong empire that is unassailable from without. There is the elimination of dissent from within. There is also the creation of loyalty from within - the carrot to the stick of punishment - which helps to promote stable governance.

Focusing on only one of these factors may show some self-interest, but it also shows short-sightedness. Spend your time putting down revolutions and people will hate you more, and revolt more - all while your enemies on the outside continue to grow in power. Spend your time fighting wars and the fatigue will literally drive your citizens mad. (Seriously, look into how things like witch hunts coincided with long wars in history.) Spend too much time enjoying yourself and not enough time governing, and expect to be accompanied by a group of your citizenry down to the town square to be forcibly shortened. The truly enlightened Evil ruler focuses on all of these things, and the best way to do that is - ironically - to resemble, at least on the surface, a benevolent ruler. Or, at least, a benevolent dictator.

zlefin

2017-10-31, 10:10 AM

This reminds me alot of Gaul'Doth halfdead from the Heroes of Might and Magic IV campaign. he's fairly similar to what you describe (even as a necromancer).
It'd be a good case to look up if you want an example.

Segev

2017-10-31, 10:18 AM

If you don't believe me you probably have a smartphone in your pocket that was made by something that very closely resembles slave labor.Er, no. It really, really doesn't. The people employed to make smart phones at the wage rates and in the working conditions you claim "very closely resemble[] slave labor" are there voluntarily, because it is the highest paying, safest job they can get where they live. There is no force save their own self-interest compelling them to put up with it and work hard at it. Nobody is standing over them with a whip, and nobody is compelling them to stay if they have what they consider a better alternative. If they fail to show up for work, the worst that will happen is that somebody else will be hired to replace them and they'll lose that opportunity.

Terming that as "closely resembl slave labor" is to do an injustice to the employee as well as his employer. It suggests that it is wicked to have that job exist, and that the employee would be better off if the option were taken away.

Eh, it depends. Wealth only commands power when there's disparity. Overall quality of life improving has more to do with the advancement of technology and production practices than wealth. Yes and no. "Wealth" is not "wealth disparity." "Wealth" is a measure of how much you have, in comfort and resources and security (physical, financial, etc.). So a rising standard of living is an absolute increase in overall wealth. You are right that wealth disparity creates power over those with less, as they are influenced to desire what is to the more wealthy a small amount and will value it greatly enough to do a LOT to gain it.

But the question becomes, then: would you rather be seriously wealthy and have many people serving you, but lack indoor plumbing, air conditioning, and rely on smelly inefficient animals for your transport? Or would you rather have those things, plus the internet, plus easy access to goods and services that you don't personally employ experts in providing?

And really you can make tremendous profit from going to war yourself, depending on how your economy is structured. Importantly though war secures a growing kingdom territory to expand into and greater natural resources to exploit to fuel growth. Having complete control over a resource is definitely better than having to trade for it, so war can be worth it depending on your enemies strength and how much attention they can afford to give you.Short-term, yes. Your parasitic empire will profit by taking the wealth of others and eliminating or starving out their populace, thus reducing short-term consumptive drains on those recently-plundered resources. But you'll still get more resources in the long run by promoting the health of your neighbors and trading with them. Humans are net producers of resources; we produce more than we consume. The more humans operating at normal levels of efficiency there are, the greater the overall resource pool and the wealthier every individual gets.

I read all of these posts, think of how pragmatic and pro-Evil everyone is, and I realize just how successful an influence I've had.

Hush. Let me have this.You've earned it, buddy. Go on and bask. I'm not up to anything while you're enjoying this.

Anyway, there's not much for me to add that hasn't been added. On the surface, the kingdom of a long-sighted Evil ruler with enlightened, rational self-interest will be mostly indistinguishable from a benevolent dictatorship. True, laws will be draconian in some ways and punishments will likely be severe, but on the whole life will probably be a positive, or at least non-negative, experience for those who keep their heads down, their mouths closed, and who OBEY.

That's the surface, though. What matters is what you can't see - the ruler's motivations. As others have noted, his reason for providing affordable housing isn't altruism towards the poor, it's to eliminate the crime-ridden slums that create disruption and dissent. His reason for providing healthcare isn't to ensure longer, happy lives, but to guarantee healthy, strong workers and soldiers. His reason for offering solid education isn't enlightenment, but indoctrination. His reason for bringing these positives into the lives of his citizens isn't that he cares about them, but because he wants their worship and adulation. He wants healthy, productive citizens who adore him, who are willing to toil and fight and die in his name.

His people construct monuments in his image, not only because they love him, but because they rightfully fear him and he commands it. His people chant songs in his honor, not only out of respect, but because the State demands their daily rituals of compliance and submission. They live each day knowing who rules over them, showing him deference and reverence, in part because he does good for them, and in part because of what will happen if they don't properly acknowledge it.

The enlightened self-interest of an Evil ruler involves a confluence of factors. There's living a life of comfort and power, true. There is also creating the [I]image of a life of comfort and power - it promotes an impression of strength, but also a model to which people can aspire and which inspires their admiration. There's creating a strong empire that is unassailable from without. There is the elimination of dissent from within. There is also the creation of loyalty from within - the carrot to the stick of punishment - which helps to promote stable governance.

Focusing on only one of these factors may show some self-interest, but it also shows short-sightedness. Spend your time putting down revolutions and people will hate you more, and revolt more - all while your enemies on the outside continue to grow in power. Spend your time fighting wars and the fatigue will literally drive your citizens mad. (Seriously, look into how things like witch hunts coincided with long wars in history.) Spend too much time enjoying yourself and not enough time governing, and expect to be accompanied by a group of your citizenry down to the town square to be forcibly shortened. The truly enlightened Evil ruler focuses on all of these things, and the best way to do that is - ironically - to resemble, at least on the surface, a benevolent ruler. Or, at least, a benevolent dictator.Some of this seems inefficient, to me, but I suppose there is the end desire to ensure YOU stay on top, even if you're overall less wealthy and comfortable because of it. This is where evil ceases to be pragmatic, though.

Heliomance

2017-10-31, 11:00 AM

Zanos

2017-10-31, 11:06 AM

Er, no. It really, really doesn't. The people employed to make smart phones at the wage rates and in the working conditions you claim "very closely resemble[] slave labor" are there voluntarily, because it is the highest paying, safest job they can get where they live. There is no force save their own self-interest compelling them to put up with it and work hard at it. Nobody is standing over them with a whip, and nobody is compelling them to stay if they have what they consider a better alternative. If they fail to show up for work, the worst that will happen is that somebody else will be hired to replace them and they'll lose that opportunity.

Terming that as "closely resembl[ing] slave labor" is to do an injustice to the employee as well as his employer. It suggests that it is wicked to have that job exist, and that the employee would be better off if the option were taken away.

I probably shouldn't have brought it up because it trends very close to real world political issues, so I'll just say you should look into this if you're interested. The conditions in major electronic factories are very poor and generally not good for the areas they set up in.

Specifics aside the general point stands. There's a lot of exploitation that happens far away that people simply don't have the time or energy to care about. That's not a moral attack on anyone. Just how it is.

But the question becomes, then: would you rather be seriously wealthy and have many people serving you, but lack indoor plumbing, air conditioning, and rely on smelly inefficient animals for your transport? Or would you rather have those things, plus the internet, plus easy access to goods and services that you don't personally employ experts in providing?
You can have both tremendous wealth inequality and advanced technology that raises the general standard of living. There's a lot of modern examples of this.

Short-term, yes. Your parasitic empire will profit by taking the wealth of others and eliminating or starving out their populace, thus reducing short-term consumptive drains on those recently-plundered resources. But you'll still get more resources in the long run by promoting the health of your neighbors and trading with them. Humans are net producers of resources; we produce more than we consume. The more humans operating at normal levels of efficiency there are, the greater the overall resource pool and the wealthier every individual gets.
You're misunderstanding. We aren't talking about acquiring short term wealth, we're talking about conquering sources of wealth. Acquiring territory, removing the local populace, and then making the land available with incentives to people from your kingdom to settle is a time tested way of expanding an empire with loyal citizens. A mine worked and taxed internally is simply better than one owned by another kingdom.

Trade is only the preferably option when war is too expensive.

Red Fel

2017-10-31, 11:18 AM

All of these so far have focused on a ruler, out for their own gain. But selfless evil is a thing, too. How does this change if the character is high, but not the top of the pile? If their primary motivation is loyalty to their chosen cause? A vizier who serves the Empire before all else (including the Emperor), or a corporate executive whose first duty is to the shareholders? Someone who doesn't want the power and wealth for themselves, who goes "I am but a cog in the machine - it is the machine itself that is important"?

Less Vetinari, more the Operative.

By definition, a selfless character isn't operating in a state of rational self-interest - he's operating in another's interest. At best, it is self-interest inasmuch as it is in this character's interest to serve someone else's interest. But that logic only goes so far.

A self-interested ruler is looking at all the facts, all the parts of the puzzle, and making the best decision for him. That's what makes him "enlightened" Evil - he's operating on a level that permits him to do small-g good in pursuit of his aims, which are ultimately selfish and self-serving.

While your Darth Vader types are necessarily Evil due to the masters they serve and the means they employ, however, they aren't pursuing a selfish or self-serving agenda. Really, they aren't serving any agenda of their own, but rather another's agenda - they are, to cite the familiar mantra, "just following orders." Frankly, such characters verge on LN, rather than LE, and escape Neutrality only narrowly.

The point is, a character can hardly constitute "enlightened" when he declines to engage in actual thought and introspection, and/or declines to comport his actions with his decisions. The Operative acknowledges that he's a monster, and the world he wants to create has no place for him. But he sets that aside when he abdicates his moral decisions to his leader, as such characters inevitably do. He has the leisure to ponder the fact that his actions make him a vile thing, because he does not ultimately hold himself responsible for his actions.

It's good for an Evil ruler to keep people like this around. Great, in fact, since they seem willing to live and die for his cause, irrespective of what they think about what they do. But while a leader can consider the ramifications of his actions, and change them accordingly, a blind follower like you describe takes no charge of his own conduct. The former can be seen as "enlightened," because he plans a course of action and pursues it; the latter cannot, because even if he engages in that same thoughtful consideration - which not all loyal minions do - he will not deviate from the course set before him.

At least in my view, such a follower can either pursue a rational self-interest or be blindly loyal. Not both. For a better example of the former, consider Ser Bronn of the Blackwater, from Game of Thrones. He is a mercenary sellsword; he works for the highest bidder. And yet, rather than remain a sword-for-hire, he has decided to ally himself with Jaime Lannister. Not out of blind loyalty, like the Operative - he knows exactly what he's getting into. He is paid well, and enjoys the luxury that comes from working for the wealthy and powerful. Also important to him, however, is that he likes Jaime. He's genuinely fond of him. Would he leave the Lannisters if they lost power? Quite possibly. At heart, he is self-serving and mercenary. But while they have it, he benefits from it. He's not undyingly loyal, but reasonably so, and working for them inures to his self-interest. (And in terms of Evil, well... It's Game of Thrones. You're either at least morally ambiguous, or unambiguously dead.)

Segev

2017-10-31, 11:21 AM

I probably shouldn't have brought it up because it trends very close to real world political issues, so I'll just say you should look into this if you're interested. The conditions in major electronic factories are very poor and generally not good for the areas they set up in.

Specifics aside the general point stands. There's a lot of exploitation that happens far away that people simply don't have the time or energy to care about. That's not a moral attack on anyone. Just how it is.My point is simply that, despite it looking horrific to us in our First World comforts, it is better than the other options the people working there have. Because if it weren't, they'd be taking those other options.

You can have both tremendous wealth inequality and advanced technology that raises the general standard of living. There's a lot of modern examples of this.Never said you couldn't. There are two ways to achieve wealth for a subset of people, however. One is to engage in policies that optimally use resources even if that group doesn't immediately benefit. Even if they're not the ones at the top end of wealth disparity, they still are better off than in a more primitive, less economically efficient society where they're at the top but that top is lower than the middle of the first option.

The second is to absolutely monopolize the resources, enslaving those outside the sub-group. This will tend to leave them poorer than they otherwise would be, and the wealth gap objectively smaller only because the "floor" in the alternative is higher than the "ceiling" in this version. But they get the trappings by dint of force rather than by having to be the best at utilizing resources, which might be enough for them.

You're misunderstanding. We aren't talking about acquiring short term wealth, we're talking about conquering sources of wealth. Acquiring territory, removing the local populace, and then making the land available with incentives to people from your kingdom to settle is a time tested way of expanding an empire with loyal citizens. A mine worked and taxed internally is simply better than one owned by another kingdom.

Trade is only the preferably option when war is too expensive.The mistake you're making is in assuming that this will get you wealth faster than a peaceful alliance and mutually-beneficial trade with the other group.

Yes, you can go to war, devastate them, blow up your own resources and theirs, and have mines that you will need to invest in repairing. Then you will own the whole apparatus, once you shift your own populace to working it. You've diminished your own resources, and spread more thinly your work force, and the overall production of the area is less than when two kingdoms ruled different parts of it. But your own kingdom is wealthier than it was before you invaded.

However, if you had instead managed to trade with them, their already-extant resource-harvesting apparatus is a cost you need not take on. You need not diminish your own work force to take over their resource-harvesting stations, and you will not have them running on fewer people than were before the war. Neither of you will have resources blown up in the war. And, through trade, you will provide them with what you would have had to export to build up anyway, and what they would have taken from you by force if they'd won the hypothetical war. You will gain the wealth you would have spent resources blowing up, and for net fewer resources than it would have cost you to go to war.

It may not enrich you, personally, quite so much in the short term, but in the medium and longer terms, the head start of not having to rebuild, nor having to squander resources in war that you could invest in production, means the whole area is richer, and you will be, too, in the end.

2D8HP

2017-10-31, 11:21 AM

Basically, you want to be Machiavelli......

This seems related to The Prince where Machiavelli explains that you can't reward a subject every time they do what you want or it becomes viewed as pay. If you reward sporadically, but do reward, it's seen as generosity. People are not loyal to pay, they are loyal to a prince they see as generous. So by not always rewarding the behavior you want, you increase their loyalty.

"...it is unnecessary for a prince to have all the good qualities I have enumerated, but it is very necessary to appear to have them. And I shall dare to say this also, that to have them and always to observe them is injurious, and that to appear to have them is useful; to appear merciful, faithful, humane, religious, upright, and to be so, but with a mind so framed that should you require not to be so, you may be able and know how to change to the opposite...

.....Men judge generally more by the eye than by the hand, for everyone can see and few can feel. Every one sees what you appear to be, few really know what you are....

....For it must be noted, that men must either be caressed or else annihilated; they will revenge themselves for small injuries, but cannot do so for great ones; the injury therefore that we do to a man must be such that we need not fear his vengeance.The new ruler must determine all the injuries that he will need to inflict. He must inflict them once and for all....

....From this arises the question whether it is better to be loved rather than feared, or feared rather than loved. It might perhaps be answered that we should wish to be both: but since love and fear can hardly exist together, if we must choose between them, it is far safer to be feared than loved"

-Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince

Zanos

2017-10-31, 11:31 AM

The mistake you're making is in assuming that this will get you wealth faster than a peaceful alliance and mutually-beneficial trade with the other group.

Yes, you can go to war, devastate them, blow up your own resources and theirs, and have mines that you will need to invest in repairing. Then you will own the whole apparatus, once you shift your own populace to working it. You've diminished your own resources, and spread more thinly your work force, and the overall production of the area is less than when two kingdoms ruled different parts of it. But your own kingdom is wealthier than it was before you invaded.

However, if you had instead managed to trade with them, their already-extant resource-harvesting apparatus is a cost you need not take on. You need not diminish your own work force to take over their resource-harvesting stations, and you will not have them running on fewer people than were before the war. Neither of you will have resources blown up in the war. And, through trade, you will provide them with what you would have had to export to build up anyway, and what they would have taken from you by force if they'd won the hypothetical war. You will gain the wealth you would have spent resources blowing up, and for net fewer resources than it would have cost you to go to war.

It may not enrich you, personally, quite so much in the short term, but in the medium and longer terms, the head start of not having to rebuild, nor having to squander resources in war that you could invest in production, means the whole area is richer, and you will be, too, in the end.
Diminishing workforce is only a problem if you have more jobs than people to fill them, which is historically a very uncommon problem. In a government where land is worked for resources and land is typically inherited, you generally want to have land to provide for future generations as they expand. Having the same amount of land and a growing population is the opposite of good, since you'll get unrest as future generations don't have access to the same means of producing wealth as their predecessors. If land = wealth and your population is growing, you need more land, pure and simple. This eventually dissipated due to shifting away from a feudal system with a stronger focus on centralized food production and more career paths in mercantilism due to advancements in technology, but that's not the assumption of a typical D&D setting which still runs on a system of kings, lords, and serfs.

Now assuming your goal is to grow your kingdom and for those people to be relatively prosperous, you're going to need capital(land) for them to work. This puts you in inherent competition for surrounding kingdoms, who are also jockeying for the same thing.

Eldariel

2017-10-31, 11:36 AM

This draws back to Social Contract Theory in the spirit of Thomas Hobbes. Basically, under that premise every individual is self-serving and yet social contract is optimal no matter the kind of ruler because the alternative ("state of nature" where everybody fends for themselves) is so untenable. Which kinda works here; as long as everyone gets more out of the whole than they would without the ruler then the inequality and unfairness is vindicated and somebody getting 100 times more than someone else is perfectly okay because that someone else is still getting more than what they'd be getting without the system in place. That's certainly possible to establish and yes, it's definitely powerful to think up evil characters who only ever do good.

You're evil if your methods are evil so if you decide to save the world by solving an equivalent of the trolley problem (trolley is riding over 5 people tied to its tracks, you can push a really fat person in the way to save those 5 people at the cost of that one person's life; either by inaction or action [whether this matters depends on your philosophical stance] you will cause some people to die) you'll be branded evil regardless. Sacrifice 1000 to save 100, sacrifice 10000 to save 1000, it's impossible to say what's the right call. Look for a better alternative? It might not exist and even if it does, you may not find it in time causing those 10000 to die. It's a very other kind of evil hero than what's being presented here but it's basically evil saving the world anyways.

There are lots of shades of particular neutral evil and it's not hard to think up a king who endorses undeath and uses undead workforce to create a utopia making him supposedly evil. Or one who has no motivation to help anyone but themself but in doing so achieves a global utopia because ultimately that's how they can best help themself; a harmonious machine is the one that puts them at least risk and guarantees their future. No truly evil character wants the world to end or even pointless eternal life since that would mean their own demise or the pointlessness of their existence; think Raistlin who killed the gods. Ultimately, an Exalted Good state is the optimal place to live in for one's person; no risk of assassins, rebellions, plotting, etc. and everything you could ever want given to you from the plentitude that is everything so an evil character might be motivated to create such a place. She doesn't care about others, she only cares about her personal existence being perfect. And someone who is ultimately a hedonist in the modern corrupt sense can easily be evil and still want such an existence. Let others worry about wars, the world, etc. she just wants all the pleasures of life and thus goes to extreme lengths to achieve those.

Heliomance

2017-10-31, 11:38 AM

By definition, a selfless character isn't operating in a state of rational self-interest - he's operating in another's interest. At best, it is self-interest inasmuch as it is in this character's interest to serve someone else's interest. But that logic only goes so far.

A self-interested ruler is looking at all the facts, all the parts of the puzzle, and making the best decision for him. That's what makes him "enlightened" Evil - he's operating on a level that permits him to do small-g good in pursuit of his aims, which are ultimately selfish and self-serving.

While your Darth Vader types are necessarily Evil due to the masters they serve and the means they employ, however, they aren't pursuing a selfish or self-serving agenda. Really, they aren't serving any agenda of their own, but rather another's agenda - they are, to cite the familiar mantra, "just following orders." Frankly, such characters verge on LN, rather than LE, and escape Neutrality only narrowly.

That's not quite the question I asked though. If they serve a cause that has no volition of its own, then they are pursuing their own agenda. An empire cannot give orders, but you can act "for the good of the empire". It's entirely possible to serve the empire over the emperor - it often involves assassinating incompetent emperors so that the empire can continue. Similarly, in a cyberpunk setting, you can act to increase the bottom line of your corporation. That's not following orders, it's just a cause that you place as more important than your own gain. You can look at all the facts, all the parts of the puzzle, and make the best decision for your chosen cause - for your empire, for your corporation, for your dynasty, whatever.

BloodSnake'sCha

2017-10-31, 12:00 PM

snip

Lord Red Fel,

it look to me like you just described the Fire Nation from Avatar: The Last AirBender and pointed out a reason for it fall.

The people there had a good life while worshiping a dictator.

The problem there was that the dictator made himself a very powerful enemies.

denthor

2017-10-31, 12:17 PM

Red Fel

2017-10-31, 12:49 PM

That's not quite the question I asked though. If they serve a cause that has no volition of its own, then they are pursuing their own agenda. An empire cannot give orders, but you can act "for the good of the empire". It's entirely possible to serve the empire over the emperor - it often involves assassinating incompetent emperors so that the empire can continue. Similarly, in a cyberpunk setting, you can act to increase the bottom line of your corporation. That's not following orders, it's just a cause that you place as more important than your own gain. You can look at all the facts, all the parts of the puzzle, and make the best decision for your chosen cause - for your empire, for your corporation, for your dynasty, whatever.

Hmm. Fair point.

I'd argue that it's still not quite self-interest, but group-interest, but since you're basically making the core assumption that benefit of your group will benefit you, it parallels.

However, you're not necessarily doing anything to secure your place in the group, either. The Operative doesn't guarantee his fate by doing anything but being very good at his job, and assuming he will be rewarded by the group/cause he serves.

Truly enlightened self-interest tries not to rely on the magnanimity of a group or cause - particularly because, as you point out, a cause (e.g. "an empire") can't actually act, except through people. Instead, enlightened self-interest relies on itself to guarantee its own benefits. Your loyal servant character either (1) acts in his own self-interest, in that he assumes (wrong or right) that he will be rewarded for loyal service, or (2) serves his cause without regard for reward or benefit, in which case he is not acting in his own self-interest.

He can make the best decision for his cause, but unless he is doing so for his own near-certain benefit, it can hardly be called "self-interest." Enlightened, debatably, but not self-interest.

gkathellar

2017-10-31, 01:06 PM

OP, it seems like you've defined this hypothetical villainous ruler as someone whose worldview will never permit them to do anything evil, for totally selfish reasons. That's fine, I suppose, but I think the catch is that then they're probably not evil.

Certainly, they may be a jerk. Certainly, they're not good. But if their whole life philosophy forbids them from actually ever doing anything morally wrong ... how are they evil, exactly? I mean, sure, they might have creepy ideas about the value of truth or a nasty disdain for the liberty of others, but if they never act on it ... so what? In reality, you're describing someone committed to a belief system that forbids them from doing any actual evil.

Now if, in addition to all of that, they're also murdering orphans and stealing old people's canes and kitten huffing on the side? If the kingdom is a repressive dictatorship ruled by law but without the rule of law? They're probably evil. But you didn't mention that. What evil things is this person doing, exactly?

Similarly, war is only profitable from a narrow, short-sighted point of view. International co-operation and good relations are far better in the long term - not because the loss of life in war is morally regrettable and should be avoided, but because you can't sell things easily to a nation you're at war with.

This is absolutely untrue, on multiple levels. DISCLAIMER: The following does not reflect how I think nations should behave.

Firstly, the fruits of war can last a long time. The Roman Empire was around for approximately 400 years. The Mongols didn't retain their grip on China for long (only a hundred years or so), but the Western Khanate went on for centuries beyond that. A few of the Alexandrian states were similarly long-lived. I could go on, but I think my point has been made.

Secondly, war is a big part of how nations secure their vaunted "international cooperation." The threat of military power, combined with demonstrated willingness to use it, is a huge factor in securing the compliance of other nations in practice. Loyalty and friendship are all well and good. But at the end of the day, when your interests and the interests of an ally seriously conflict, it will be the tacit acknowledgement of your power for violence - direct or otherwise - that moves them to give you what you want.

Thirdly, war is economic in scope and nature. Wars are fought to seize monopolies, trade routes, and resources. Wars are fought because of protectionism and predatory mercantile practices. Wars are fought because a nation is the only game in town and they like it that way. War is economically inadvisable only until violence can extract a higher price than peace. The Teutons and Mongols participated in centuries of slave raids on neighboring peoples, and did quite well for themselves. One of the motives for the War of 1812 was the practice of kidnapping American sailors to serve as slave-labor on British merchant vessels, a practice that the eventual peace did not secure an end to.

Fourthly, you absolutely can sell things to people you've waged war on, once you've conquered them. And you can do it on your terms.

I think you are taking a very modern tack to war, because in the modern era your point is at least more credible. The cost of war today can be impossibly high, and the scale of the destruction vast. Nonetheless, many nations continue to find advantages in it.

Consider a slum district full of people in extreme poverty. Some evil rulers might prefer to raze such a thing, kill all the inhabitants, and burn it to the ground. But that's an expense, and won't actually generate any value to offset it. Also, the slum will be back in a few years. If instead you invest in a comprehensive uplift programme designed to provide jobs and get people set up securely, then you have a considerably higher initial outlay, but in five or ten years' time those worthless slumdwellers will be productive members of society, generating value and profit instead of simply being a drain on the city, and that will - in the long term - pay back your initial investment many times over.

I think your understanding of urban living shows a very modern slant. Historical cities in much of the world were walled-in and exercised careful control of passage in and out of the city. This isn't to say urban slums and sprawl didn't exist, but they tended to be structurally different.

More to the point, the ruler who burns down a slum for no reason, more than evil, is an idiot. Poverty has a social and economic function in creating a cheap, potentially tractable work force. Societies need ditch-diggers, and so the scenario in which an evil overlord has all the ditch diggers killed for being smelly seems unlikely to me.

For a real example of what you're talking about, take the Roman Legion, which was established in the form we'd think of it by Gaius Marius from a population of (mostly) the urban poor. Prior to Marius, these people weren't even included in Rome's census. He took Rome's slums and created a highly-disciplined standing army rarely equaled in their era. Retired soldiers could be made into landholders in conquered countries, strengthening Rome's military grip. This very legion allowed Rome's generals to overthrow her patrician Senate and remained the keystone of her imperial power for centuries. (This isn't to say the Marian reforms were a bad thing or that Marius was evil, or that the Roman Republic was nice, or that developing slums is foolish. My point is simply that this was a smart thing that allowed powerful people to engage in wanton violence and establish a permanent dictatorship.)

So "good" and benevolent actions don't seem to require any empathy or concern for other people - sufficient long-term thinking, ambition, rationality, and willingness to work through ramifications and consequences will, so far as I can see, produce a very similar result.

This is true, but you greatly underestimate the potential value of evil actions, and so overlook why a "smart" evil person might do horrible things.

What do you all think? How would a realm run on such lines differ from a more normally "Good" civilisation? How would it appear from the outside? From the inside?

By the parameters you've set, it would look basically the same. But those parameters are problematic, because an evil person is pretty much by definition willing to do evil unto others. Absent that willingness, I'm not sure how evil you can claim them to be.

Heliomance

2017-10-31, 06:38 PM

Lord Raziere

2017-10-31, 06:51 PM

Fair point. I guess what I'm asking is more, what evil acts remain worth it, when taking an enlightened long term view? What evil acts are genuinely more effective than perceived "good" acts, and could be considered worth the PR hit?

Anything you can make propaganda about. Why bother just conforming to peoples views of benevolent, when you can master those views to be whatever you want? Why just hide like a chameleon, when you can paint the world the colors you want to show so that you don't even stand out in your natural state?

SangoProduction

2017-10-31, 06:52 PM

Thealtruistorc

2017-10-31, 09:51 PM

Apparently, I've been away from these boards for too long. It's time for me to re-teach you all a few things.

First of all, your view of evil seems rather limited. You continue to define it as the opposite of that petty social construct collectively referred to as good, and as a result go on defining the concepts of enlightened evil in a limited context. In order for you to reach the true heights of enlightenment, you need to tear away from such limitations and truly explore the possibilities that come from ripping up your confining morality like it was a set of children's clothes. Kant, Descartes, Heironeous, Shelyn, Nethys, Irori, everyone that you've ever thought of emblematic of enlightenment now means nothing, because they were unable to get out of the sensibility that there is an objective good that the paladins of the world spread.

Stop looking at evil through the sensibilities of enlightenment and start looking at enlightenment through the sensibilities of evil.

Now then, swat the fly on your arm. How did that make you feel? Was there Pity? Remorse? Hesitation? I assumed not. Let that be the first lesson about the universe: that death and destruction only matter because other people make them matter. Thousands of humane, intelligent creatures are butchered every day with the universe giving even less of a thought, because there was never anything important about them in the first place. Souls are no more special than fireballs, or rocks, or fecal stains on the ground. All are just inconsequential components of a larger, uncaring multiverse, a multiverse loaded with so many unfortunate fates and incompetent individuals that not even the seeminly omnipotent gods can do anything to even diminish them.

The answer to this question is obvious: in spite of everything we players know about the gods and cosmologies of the setting, there's a lot that still isn't in our control. The laws we've imposed upon the world are mutable, and the actions of "law" and "good" don't even produce orderly or altruistic results much of the time. We've got a long way to go in order to become enlightened, and that means that some serious damage has to be done.

Nothing is sacred, nothing is safe. All is flimsy.

I should write more of this when I have some sleep in my system.

unseenmage

2017-11-01, 12:10 AM

Evil isn't a goal in and of itself. You don't wake up and go "Ooh, I need to fill my quota of evil today!"
...
Unless you are an evil deity or outsider one imagines. Evil is your day job after all. Though I imagine for most evil gods and extraplanar monsters it is also their passion.

Or you could be an evil Player Character with a GM who enforces alignment shifts.

...

A self-interested ruler is looking at all the facts, all the parts of the puzzle, and making the best decision for him. That's what makes him "enlightened" Evil - he's operating on a level that permits him to do small-g good in pursuit of his aims, which are ultimately selfish and self-serving.
...

Reading through this thread I keep having this same Q cruise through my mind...

How much small-g good before their alignment starts to slip into N? How many 'greater goods' after that before their alignment starts to nudge towards the G spectrum?

For the record, to me, E does harm first and foremost.
N is self interest or interest in the balance.
NE is self interest, but there has to be that component of doing harm or else you're just a lightly evil flavored TN.

TN would push the kitten into the rain to stay dry.
NE kicks the kitten regardless.
Or so that is how I run my games.

Telok

2017-11-01, 02:22 AM

Evil isn't a goal in and of itself. You don't wake up and go "Ooh, I need to fill my quota of evil today!"

Ruddigore (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruddigore)

ROB. For a week I have fulfilled my accursed doom! I have duly committed a
crime a day! Not a great crime, I trust, but still, in the eyes of one as strictly regulated
as I used to be, a crime. But will my ghostly ancestors be satisfied with what I have
done, or will they regard it as an unworthy subterfuge? (Addressing Pictures.) Oh,
my forefathers, wallowers in blood, there came at last a day when, sick of crime, you,
each and every, vowed to sin no more, and so, in agony, called welcome Death to free
you from your cloying guiltiness. Let the sweet psalm of that repentant hour soften
your long-dead hearts, and tune your souls to mercy on your poor posterity! (kneeling)

(The stage darkens for a moment. It becomes light again, and the Pictures are seen to
have become animated.)

CHORUS OF FAMILY PORTRAITS.

Painted emblems of a race,
All accurst in days of yore,
Each from his accustomed place
Steps into the world once more.

(The Pictures step from their frames and march round the stage.)

Baronet of Ruddigore,
Last of our accursèd line,
Down upon the oaken floor –
Down upon those knees of thine.

<much singing>

ROB. I recognize you now – you are the picture that hangs at the end of the
gallery.
SIR ROD. In a bad light. I am.
ROB. Are you considered a good likeness?
SIR ROD. Pretty well. Flattering.
ROB. Because as a work of art you are poor.
SIR ROD. I am crude in colour, but I have only been painted ten years. In a
couple of centuries I shall be an Old Master, and then you will be sorry you spoke
lightly of me.
ROB. And may I ask why you have left your frames?
SIR ROD. It is our duty to see that our successors commit their daily crimes in a
conscientious and workmanlike fashion. It is our duty to remind you that you are
evading the conditions under which you are permitted to exist.
ROB. Really, I don't know what you'd have. I've only been a bad baronet a
week, and I've committed a crime punctually every day.
SIR ROD. Let us inquire into this. Monday?
ROB. Monday was a Bank Holiday.

And it just goes downhill from there.

Eldariel

2017-11-01, 02:40 AM

Unless you are an evil deity or outsider one imagines. Evil is your day job after all. Though I imagine for most evil gods and extraplanar monsters it is also their passion.

Or you could be an evil Player Character with a GM who enforces alignment shifts.

Reading through this thread I keep having this same Q cruise through my mind...

How much small-g good before their alignment starts to slip into N? How many 'greater goods' after that before their alignment starts to nudge towards the G spectrum?

For the record, to me, E does harm first and foremost.
N is self interest or interest in the balance.
NE is self interest, but there has to be that component of doing harm or else you're just a lightly evil flavored TN.

TN would push the kitten into the rain to stay dry.
NE kicks the kitten regardless.
Or so that is how I run my games.

Sounds like very cartoony sort of evil suited for a one-shot ****s-for-giggles more than anything. No room for Machiavellian 'ends justify the means' rulers nor driven people who will stop at nothing to achieve their heart's desire. Card-carrying evil sounds like one extreme case more than anything.

Heliomance

2017-11-01, 02:53 AM

For the record, to me, E does harm first and foremost.
N is self interest or interest in the balance.
NE is self interest, but there has to be that component of doing harm or else you're just a lightly evil flavored TN.

TN would push the kitten into the rain to stay dry.
NE kicks the kitten regardless.
Or so that is how I run my games.

That's the alignment known as Stupid Evil. What gain is achieved by kicking the kitten? What does it actually do for you?

Consider two people stuck on a desert island, with limited food. An enlightened evil character may well slit the other one's throat without a moment's hesitation or remorse, in order to make the food last longer and increase the chances of their own survival. If they're not in a survival situation, though, what is there to gain by the murder? For removing inconvenient people, finding out someone's price (everyone has one) and then bribing or blackmailing them flips them from being a liability to being an asset - far more efficient. With magic in the mix, your options are even wider. Yes, sometimes someone's price is too high, and they need removing more permanently, but it's less often than you might think.

Evil is not a goal. Evil is a means to an end, and is not always the most efficient or effective means available.

unseenmage

2017-11-01, 03:02 AM

Did I miss something or were we not discussing evil in a cosmology where Evil is a force of nature?

A cosmology within the framework of a game, I might add, that is designed for black hats vs white hats cartoonishness?

The game advises alignment shifts when a listed alignment isnt adhered to. Because it is a game.
It implies that even succubi arent immune by presenting an alignment flipped example at one point.

Sure, be enlightened evil, or Machiavellian, or amoral mad scientist (my personal favorite) but beware at some point you gotta back up that little capitol 'E' on your character sheet lest the good guys (or at least a Modron or two) start dropping by unironically for afternoon tea.

Heliomance

2017-11-01, 03:16 AM

There is room to run games with more nuance than that. I have little time for Saturday morning cartoon evil. But the "good guys" dropping over for tea is useful and should be encouraged - it means they trust you to a certain extent, and gives you a chance to influence them. Why would you pass up that opportunity?

An enlightened evil character doesn't need to "back up that E on the character sheet". They don't know they have a character sheet, and they don't care if the universe thinks they're "evil" or not. Frankly, they probably don't consider themselves evil - everyone is the hero of their own story and all that. They just do what achieves their goals in the most effective manner possible, without regard for petty things like morality.

khadgar567

2017-11-01, 03:28 AM

Heliomance

2017-11-01, 04:15 AM

good guys coming for tea to your evil stronghold. might well as show them the self destruct button will ya. one of the maxims of red fel is

Who said anything about inner sanctums (sancta?)? If you don't have a place for hospitality that isn't a critical location that you can't afford to lose, you're doing it wrong.

Also, one presumes that if they're coming to tea, they don't consider you their enemy.

khadgar567

2017-11-01, 05:11 AM

Who said anything about inner sanctums (sancta?)? If you don't have a place for hospitality that isn't a critical location that you can't afford to lose, you're doing it wrong.

Also, one presumes that if they're coming to tea, they don't consider you their enemy.
be careful for back stab and read evil overlord rules for one more time will ya.

Heliomance

2017-11-01, 06:30 AM

be careful for back stab and read evil overlord rules for one more time will ya.

Could you please let punctuation into your life?

I'm well aware of the Evil Overlord list, I read it back in the early '00s. I'm at a loss to see where anything I've said conflicts with it, though. Obviously you should guard against the possibility of betrayal, but paranoia can go too far and be just as much of a detriment.

You set up a specific location for hospitality. It's not in your stronghold, it doesn't house anything critical, so if it gets attacked it's no big loss. You make sure it's well appointed and comfortable, then you can justify it as being able to offer far better accommodation there than in your headquarters - which are, after all, a working building, not designed to host guests, and so completely unsuitable for such esteemed personages as yourselves, I'm sure you understand. You also make sure it's covertly defended and designed to be defensible, so that if the "heroes" do decide to try and kill you (which, honestly, is unlikely, because such people tend to put great store in hospitality), you're at a significant advantage.

gkathellar

2017-11-01, 07:21 AM

Evil isn't a goal in and of itself. You don't wake up and go "Ooh, I need to fill my quota of evil today!"

Well, not usually. The odd thing is that when we encounter people like this in real life, they come across as tremendously creepy. When we encounter them in fiction, on the other hand, they tend to be cartoonish. To make this type of character work, I think one needs to generally focus less on the evil and more on the substantial things that the evil consists of. It becomes a lot more convincing (and creepy) to say, "Ooh, I want to burn down a village today because I love the smell of toasted corpses."

Evil for evil's sake can work, so long as it's clothed appropriately.

Fair point. I guess what I'm asking is more, what evil acts remain worth it, when taking an enlightened long term view? What evil acts are genuinely more effective than perceived "good" acts, and could be considered worth the PR hit?

I think that's going to depend on context. The simplest answer may be, "whatever you can get away with," and depending on the architecture of one's power, that may be very little or it may be just about anything.

In one nation it might be expedient, for instance, for a ruler to antagonize neighboring countries and screw up the regional peace in order to beat the nationalist war drum and consolidate their power base. In a different nation with strong anti-nationalist sentiments and/or neighbors who respond to antagonism by running over the antagonist with a bulldozer, that becomes a less sensible act.

Or take the example I gave of the Roman Legion, in which the underclass were honed into a military force capable of destabilizing patrician rule. One could totally visualize a narrative in which that played out over the lifetime of a single general as part of a very deliberate plot to establish a brutal dictatorship. In this case, the basis of that general's power is military discipline and populist support, and so they can do most anything that doesn't compromise that power base.

Basically, your sensible evil ruler is going to think, "what can I do that will realistically advance my power with minimal consequences, or at least consequences that I can contain?" And if they can think of something (not necessarily anything, because evil people can have scruples - just not enough of them) they're going to do it.

Also, bear in mind that no one is sensible all of the time. People (not just evil people) give in to the stupider parts of their natures. They allow pride and habit to control their actions. They believe they can control people who they can't actually control. They commit the gambler's fallacy. They convince themselves that since a cynical worldview is correct sometimes, it must be correct all the time, and so allow the honorable and the idealistic to sneak up on them. The Lannisters, of ASoIaF, are a great example of this - extremely pragmatic and generally well-served by their low opinion of absolutely everyone, but caught by surprise at several crucial moments because they assumed their control was more complete than it was or that other people were less than they actually were.

Red Fel

2017-11-01, 08:40 AM

Reading through this thread I keep having this same Q cruise through my mind...

How much small-g good before their alignment starts to slip into N? How many 'greater goods' after that before their alignment starts to nudge towards the G spectrum?

And my response is, as long it has been: "Evil depends more on intentions than actions."

Let me give you two examples.

First: A Good character sneaks into the homes of suspected murderers and, while they're sleeping, kills them. He does so to punish them for their past crimes and prevent future ones. Even if he is right, and even if he is saving lives, his serial murders are an Evil act, and he will soon lose his G.

Second: An Evil character creates a charitable organization which provides food and medicine to impoverished communities. He does so in order that this organization, should he need it to do so, can serve as a front for money-laundering, enabling him to get rid of dirty funds and replace them with spendable, untraceable money. Even if he never uses it as such, he remains Evil, because the intent - to provide an avenue for his criminality, whether used or not - remains intact.

That's the difference. When an Evil character performs an arguably Good act for Evil reasons, he can keep his E. Now, granted, he should be doing some Evil on top of that - I wouldn't say kitten-kicking, necessarily, but it is possible to be a little too eager in dispensing draconian justice and executing tyrannical laws - but his intentions remain the key thing.

Also, one presumes that if they're coming to tea, they don't consider you their enemy.

One presumes that if they're coming to tea, they were raised with manners. Honestly, when someone invites you to tea, you take Cid's advice:

https://thelifestream.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/goddamn_tea_small_PC.png

Honestly. Manners.

Zanos

2017-11-01, 09:17 AM

Second: An Evil character creates a charitable organization which provides food and medicine to impoverished communities. He does so in order that this organization, should he need it to do so, can serve as a front for money-laundering, enabling him to get rid of dirty funds and replace them with spendable, untraceable money. Even if he never uses it as such, he remains Evil, because the intent - to provide an avenue for his criminality, whether used or not - remains intact.
That's definitely going to ping as a Good act. A "villain" who goes from town to town destroying Evil because it gets him great PR and people slather him in gifts and praise for it is still doing Good acts, even if it's for selfish reasons.

That's not to say intent doesn't matter at all, but it's secondary to the action. The reason Evil can do Good and still be Evil is because doing both Good and Evil doesn't make you Neutral, it makes you Evil. Because being Good is based on things that you aren't willing to do.

hamishspence

2017-11-01, 09:31 AM

For Good acts, intent is primary.

For Evil acts, intent is secondary.

Thus - a devil Paladin of Tyranny who goes around destroying demons in order to "eliminate my Blood War opponents" is not going to "Fall for committing Good acts".

unseenmage

2017-11-01, 09:48 AM

And my response is, as long it has been: "Evil depends more on intentions than actions."
...
Does it though?

Oh I get how "real" evil works. Spent my earliest years in a family run church and nursing home that shared property. Both lent my earliest cognition a lot of weight to related debates. Personally I mean.

But the above doesn't matter here though, does it? Because here we're discussing the game. And to my knowledge the game has levers for alignment change and those levers are based on actions rather than intent.

The in-game universe has alignment as a tangible thing which actively excercises its will against the peoples of the in-game universe.

I'm not saying there isn't ANY room for subtle evil, Machiavellianship, or enlightened action. But I am saying those seem to my mind to be a poor fit for the gameworld as it stands.

I am more than open to having my understanding of how the game handles evil changed via debate.

The insistence on referring to reality for justification for amorality though, that I can do without as it isn't useful to me in-game.
Edit: I will add that the above isnt solely aimed at Red Fel even though they are quoted in the post. My apologies for any confusion.

Heliomance

2017-11-01, 09:55 AM

I am more than open to having my understanding of how the game handles evil changed via debate.
The insistence on referring to reality for justification for amorality though, that I can do without as it isn't useful to me in-game.

It depends how you run your game. No-one ever runs a game by truly strict RAW; it's not possible. Too many of the rules simply don't work - what iteration of the RAW dysfunctions thread are we on now? So everyone has houserules, has bits of the game that they apply more loosely or not at all. There is absolutely no reason you have to stick to a strict "Count up the number of Good acts you have performed and the number of Evil acts you have performed, and the difference between them dictates your Alignment" framework. It really is possible to run alignment more loosely than that, and allow room for this sort of grey area.

unseenmage

2017-11-01, 10:00 AM

It depends how you run your game. No-one ever runs a game by truly strict RAW; it's not possible. Too many of the rules simply don't work - what iteration of the RAW dysfunctions thread are we on now? So everyone has houserules, has bits of the game that they apply more loosely or not at all. There is absolutely no reason you have to stick to a strict "Count up the number of Good acts you have performed and the number of Evil acts you have performed, and the difference between them dictates your Alignment" framework. It really is possible to run alignment more loosely than that, and allow room for this sort of grey area.
Agreed, but as has been pointed out to me recently, you still need a familiar jumping off point.
That is what focusing on the RAW or sometimes the printed fluff is to me. A basis, a starting point.

That evil can masquerade as good and vice versa in our world is a clear, 'Yup, that's a thing.', in my experience.
In D&D-verse adventures I only remember ever seeing such as it's all crumbling down around the villain's head and the PCs are coming to dispense violent action.

gkathellar

2017-11-01, 01:19 PM

And my response is, as long it has been: "Evil depends more on intentions than actions."

I would say it's more about the subtle interplay between intent and action - or, to borrow a term from the law enforcement profession, the totality of circumstances. To say otherwise implies a straightforward moral calculus, and that way lies (a) a depiction of the alignment wheels that fails to correspond with our intuitions, which can be problematic, and (b) madness.

First: A Good character sneaks into the homes of suspected murderers and, while they're sleeping, kills them. He does so to punish them for their past crimes and prevent future ones. Even if he is right, and even if he is saving lives, his serial murders are an Evil act, and he will soon lose his G.

In general, I agree - but I also think your example depends on certain social ideas of honor and fair play that are not uniquely or even distinctively good. Is it somehow better if the character challenges them to a legally-sanctioned duel and offs them in court? Is murder more evil if it's in someone's sleep than it is if you ambush and kill them in the street? Sometimes, probably, but it depends on social context. What if the victim is nobility in a society where people of one social class cannot testify against those in another (these were real), and thus no lawful justice even could be expected? Such societies can be hard to place into a conventional ethical context. Can an assassination be justified if the target is a war criminal who is presently, at that moment, presiding over unimaginable horrors? There are relevant questions of context.

But for the most part, I agree.

Second: An Evil character creates a charitable organization which provides food and medicine to impoverished communities. He does so in order that this organization, should he need it to do so, can serve as a front for money-laundering, enabling him to get rid of dirty funds and replace them with spendable, untraceable money. Even if he never uses it as such, he remains Evil, because the intent - to provide an avenue for his criminality, whether used or not - remains intact.

This is where I run into some issues. Is money-laundering intrinsically evil, or just disruptive and unlawful? Are all forms of criminality? Once again, we run into context questions, as well as some odd dependencies. Say a chaotic neutral character does exactly the same thing (I don't feel this evil intent alone is enough to push them into an alignment change, but you may disagree). They never see the need to use the charity organization in this way, just like the hypothetical evil character. What aside from their prior predisposition differentiates the two? Is that alone enough to classify identical actions along totally different lines?

Maybe, or maybe not. We will have to examine the totality of circumstances.

One presumes that if they're coming to tea, they were raised with manners

I know, right? From the way people talk you'd think that baatzeu and eladrin don't even talk to each other. Sometimes I just want to ask, "were you born in a barn?"

But I mean I don't. That would be rude.