for the evilz: a more realistic view

[Samb]

I personally don't allow my players to play or create evil PCs when I DM but that is mainly so I can avoid the whole "I'm evil so I can screw with other people" debate.

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

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

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

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

[Arakune]

I personally don't allow my players to play or create evil PCs when I DM but that is mainly so I can avoid the whole "I'm evil so I can screw with other people" debate.

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

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

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

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

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

[Samb]

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

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

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

How's that for a disclaimer?

[Tengu_temp]

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

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

[vanyell]

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

In short, I strongly disagree

[Duke of URL]

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

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

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

[Samb]

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

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

[Riffington]

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

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

[Saph]

That fact is you can't. A reason to do something is not a justification. Fact is, most people are evil. Most people are selfish and will cheat you if the opportunity arised.

[citation needed]

[Samb]

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

In short, I strongly disagree

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

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

[Tengu_temp]

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

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

[Thrice Dead Cat]

For the record, not everyone agrees with your sentiments.

[Saintjebus]

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

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

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

[hamishspence]

I figure that both "most people are evil" and "most people are good" are ovesimplifications, as is "most people are neutral"

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

This kind of evil is a lot more realistic.

[Sliver]

For the record, not everyone agrees with your sentiments.

For the record, in this thread, you are the most evil being.

[BloodyAngel]

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

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

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

[Xzeno]

If you are interested in the subject, study moral philosophy. Depending on your age, education and area, you could find a class. Look into it if you happen to be in college.

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

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

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

[Telonius]

EDIT: Nevermind, move along, nothing to see here.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

For the record, in this thread, you are the most evil being.

I would argue against that. After all, it's not inherently evil.

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

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

[hamishspence]

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

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

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

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

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

[Vonotar]

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

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

[Baron Corm]

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

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

[Yukitsu]

You'd probably like reading the Leviathin. Whole philosophy of the guy is that people are suck unless society pigeon holes them into following the rules.

[Woodsman]

There are examples in history where people actually have committed evil acts for no real reason.

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

[Duke of URL]

Evil does not mean abusive. Abusive is not the opposite of altruisitic. Selfish is. An evil person looks out for himself instead of other people, that's all.

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

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

Selfish is neutral on the good/evil axis.

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

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

[ericgrau]

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

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

[hamishspence]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Samb]

There are examples in history where people actually have committed evil acts for no real reason.

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

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

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

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

[Saintjebus]

It's because in-game, it's really hard to play any evil that's not stupid evil, unless you are the dm running the villain.

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

[Woodsman]

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

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

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