Roleplaying Ultimate Evil (tm)

[DruchiiConversion]

I've a campaign which I've been running for a while now in which, basically, the multiverse is at its core dualistic - there's a major Good god, Ao, and a major Evil goddess (not sexist, I swear - both are genderless, and the only reason the Evil goddess prefers taking female form is because most of the power in the multiverse is in the hands of males, so her female forms are more corrupting than the male ones.)

That anti-sexist derail aside... the PCs are soon going to meet this force of Ultimate Evil. They will just have ressurected her from the dead, so she's fairly grateful, and it will be on the eve of an apocalyptic-scaled battle, so she'll be focused completely.

Now... how can I as a DM possibly roleplay this force of purest destructive urge, near-omniscience, and incredible mental stats? The campaign has been styling itself around the ideal that 'Evil' is mostly just misunderstood and that the universe is focused too much on 'Good' for the welfare of those who live in it, which makes things a little easier, but still...

Any tips?

[Inyssius Tor]

Take a look in C.S. Lewis's Perelandra; it features a remarkably striking Devil (and doesn't have to resort to flaming eyes or razor-sharp claws to do so).

[dr.cello]

It is also mind-numbingly boring.

Not knowing the specifics I couldn't tell you offhand, but just keep in mind, evil works best when people don't know it's evil. Walking around saying 'By the way, I'm evil' is the quickest way to get yourself ignored. So she should be charming, persuasive, beautiful, with an underlying air of the sinister. She should be able to make murdering babies sound like the most enjoyable thing you will ever do, with numerous health benefits. Of course, she'll do a lot better trying to convince you to do all those little crimes you've always wanted to do and could justify to yourself. The best way to make someone evil is to let them do all the work.

Even if you know she's evil, she needs to have a cunning argument. Try to keep the PCs off-balance. While watching her, they need to be unable to come up with a reason to disagree with her. She needs to be cool, composed, and on top of things.

[Gralamin]

It is also mind-numbingly boring.

Not knowing the specifics I couldn't tell you offhand, but just keep in mind, evil works best when people don't know it's evil. Walking around saying 'By the way, I'm evil' is the quickest way to get yourself ignored. So she should be charming, persuasive, beautiful, with an underlying air of the sinister. She should be able to make murdering babies sound like the most enjoyable thing you will ever do, with numerous health benefits. Of course, she'll do a lot better trying to convince you to do all those little crimes you've always wanted to do and could justify to yourself. The best way to make someone evil is to let them do all the work.

Even if you know she's evil, she needs to have a cunning argument. Try to keep the PCs off-balance. While watching her, they need to be unable to come up with a reason to disagree with her. She needs to be cool, composed, and on top of things.

Wait. Are you saying that roleplaying Ultimate Evil would be like roleplaying Dhavaer?
Joking/remembering old Random banters aside, This is a good way to roleplay such a thing. In fact this is how evil is supposed to be. I could give examples, but it might be straying to far into religious topics.

[Koji]

One more believable angle is to lull humanity into inaction, rather than evil.

The evil element exists in humanity already, and if she can simply keep the masses from standing up and doing something, while prodding the right people into extra evilness, she'll come off as the kind of being who could actually operate with the subtlety required to make other people evil.

[Paragon Badger]

Moebius (particularly from Soul Reaver 2) in the Legacy of Kain series of video games is a great example of the omniscient and incredibly brilliant villian.

At the beggining of the game, Moebius seemed like a dottering old fool. But your character knew he was a man that was not to be trusted. You even had him by the throat a few times, capable of killing him without a moment's notice.

As the story progresses, Moebius quite literally manipulates you into a lose-lose scenario, ending in... unwilling suicide. :-P The final level of that game might just be the the world's greatest feat of irony and 'sienfeld-esqe' plotline coming-together-ness.

Heck, you're not even the first person in the game's series who he manipulated into a lose-lose scenario.

He was a guardian of time itself, and thus he knew everything that was going to happen before it happened.

Throughout the majority of the game, he's an old man with a shrivelled old voice. Then, once the story reaches its climax, Moebius stands up straight, doing away with that 'old man hunch', and the same voice actor reveals his true voice; a menacing, confident, and spiteful manipulator who just pwned you and you know it.

Basically, Omniscience = Power. Even if your uber ultimate villian has 6 HP, The PCs should never be able to touch her because she's taken the correct precautions. Heck, with omniscience, she should be able to know the weakness of every one of the PCs... who has the worst saves, what spells they prepared this morning... but that would be incredibly mean to do as a DM, unless the character was meant as a plot device and not an actual encounter.

[Pestlepup]

Well, as you've already thought out, intentional evil is never stupid. She'd have to be very well reasoned and basically be able to, by way of debate, convince the High Priest Of That Good God that his career choice was not the best or even the most moral one. That is beacause moral is always a little ambiguous, and evil thrives on that uncertainty. Those who try to fall back on a very dogmatic moral view, will only entrap themselves, as inflexible morality is a breeding ground for moral abuse. Then again, moral relativity becomes quickly a slippery slope, and we're off to fall again. So a witty moral philosopher to start with.

Another good point is, that unlike its counterpart, evil is not averse to doing good in order to further its cause. It's not as contradictory as it sounds, really. Good deeds generally means people will listen to you much more readily. Using good as a way to manipulate people into serving evil is actually quite effective. And makes it harder for the forces of Good to undermine your work. In essence, evil cares little for the means if they further its ends. With evil, there is no risk of falling from grace, as there's very little grace to start with.

Third, never, unless it phenomenally furthers your cause, fall for Chaotic Insane behavior. Killing puppies and eating their still beating hearts is very much evil, but in such a superficial and pointless way, that any true force of evil would find it tacky at best. Random killings, same deal. Do only what you need to. Live people are more useful than dead ones. Dead people can be useful too, but don't get caught dealing with them in the wrong company. Sometimes you have to take risks, true, but have always multiple contingencies and scapegoats to take the fall instead of yourself. Use proxies, thralls, servants, slaves, friends, anyone but yourself if there's a risk of a plan backfiring. Evil will care for its own survival, not those close to it. Unless, again, it better suits its purposes.

Which is another important point. Evil will not abandon its friends and allies unless it is absolutely certain that they serve its purposes more by being left behind. And even then, it is prudent to make it look like someone elses decision. Evil knows that the greatest strength Good has are friends and allies. Loyalty, in short. The same tools can be used for evil ends. Appearance of good is a powerful weapon, one that really makes evil scary. If you can't tell who to fight against, how do you defend yourself? Basically just make her subversive, manipulative, brilliant and pragmatic with the appearance of sincerity, forthrightness and certain idealism. Apparent innocence can be as suspicious as deviousness, so fall more on realism.

A short list of pointers for evils-to-be:
Don't be afraid to do good and occasionally go out of your way to help potential allies. No one conquers the world solo, so you need all the help you can get. Keep people close but don't let anyone in. You need to know what they think and feel so you can use that. In other words, keep informed. Knowledge is power. If you have to fake sincerity or vulnerability to gain allies, do so. Apparent trust and confiding works as well as the real deal. Take extreme care in your public profile. If something unsavory needs to be done, have someone else do it. Preferably so that they think it's their own idea. Appearing as the flaming demon-prince of hellfire makes for a lovely entré, but you'll have a crusade of celestials and paladins knocking on your door faster than you can fix your morning coffee. And you'll likely attract only homicidal psycho -type followers. Not good PR. Conquest through force of arms is well and good, but you'd have to be sure no one's going to call on Armageddon, gating in titans or gods or whipping the entire plane you inhabit into a righteous fervor. With a fantasy world, the odds are against you on that one.

That's all I can think of from the top of my hat. Hope it helps.

[nerulean]

If evil in your world is just misunderstood, then the sympathetic, seductive evil is definitely the way to go. A character who's appealing, maybe just a victim of circumstances, will have much more chance of seducing others to her way of doing things as opposed to having them charge at her with smites at the ready. Not only are you then not in combat, but you have potential minions on the way.

If you want her to actually be evil at the same time as seeming all friendly-like, have her work in the background to break the trust between the party members. Split them up in character (and out of character as well, perhaps, if your group aren't too good at keeping in and out of character knowledge separate) and speak to each one individually, telling them how they're the goddess' favour, how the others have been keeping him back them back for all this time. Cunning evil never destroys what it can persuade to destroy itself.

[Fixer]

Evil should never think of itself as evil.

When you get down to it, both good and evil creatures tend towards the same basic principle in life: "Defeat other things and take their stuff." As a result, these things cannot be considered evil in and of themselves.

Goodness believes in preserving as much life as possible while evil does not. That doesn't mean that evil believes that murdering everything is necessary. Evil creatures simply do not place any value on the lives of anyone other than themselves. They can have friends, enemies, lovers, etc. These creatures are expendable, but the higher emotional bond causes them to have a slightly higher value that Mr. Generic Peasant.

[Were-Sandwich]

Take a look in C.S. Lewis's Perelandra; it features a remarkably striking Devil (and doesn't have to resort to flaming eyes or razor-sharp claws to do so).

Seconded. Good book, if a tad confusing/preachy.

[Renegade Paladin]

Wait, so there's too much focus on helping everyone else and not enough on slaughtering the people who live in the multiverse, and this is bad for the welfare of those who live in the multiverse? Let's think that one through again, shall we?

[Jothki]

Wait, so there's too much focus on helping everyone else and not enough on slaughtering the people who live in the multiverse, and this is bad for the welfare of those who live in the multiverse? Let's think that one through again, shall we?

Not enough selfishness? Where is human triumph if everyone is slave to everyone else?

From another perspective, ever wanted to just kick back and relax for a bit and just read a book or something? That's selfish, and Good would condemn it without having the perspective that deeper Evil provides. The mental step from 'not helping' to 'harming' is a very small one if all you can think about is the Greater Good.

[Renegade Paladin]

No, it isn't at all. Looking after yourself isn't evil; if someone dedicated to doing good did nothing but sacrifice of himself to help others all the time without pause, he would soon die and then no one else would be helped. Recognizing that fact isn't evil.

[magicwalker]

The greatest con the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he doesn't exist...

Sure... they brought back the evil goddess, right... anyways as I was saying...

[aberratio ictus]

In short, do a female version of Al Pacino alias John Milton in "The Devil's Advocate".

[Dhavaer]

Wait. Are you saying that roleplaying Ultimate Evil would be like roleplaying Dhavaer?

Totally. All ultimate evil should be massively egotistical.

[AkumaWolf]

Well... I DM'd an evil campaign once.

Everybody played the typical 'guy-who-kills-all-in-sight' characters.

But *one* of the players played something different.
The guy was studying drama and used D&D role playing as practice, so it's no surprise.

He played this *extremely* calm person, which only has one facial expression, which is a combo between someone that's bored and someone that ignored everything that was in front of him.

He had this... how do I say this... It's if like he didn't see anything in front of him as living, breathing thing that feels pain as such. If an NPC talked to him, he wouldn't notice since he refused to believe they're are on his level.

He didn't slaughter people like the others aswell. But when he got one NPC alone... ohh boy... it was gross
He actually hid his evil nature from... well... all the other evils players aswell.

He even talked to me (the DM) in his evil face... damn that was creepy...

[Grey Paladin]

No, it isn't at all. Looking after yourself isn't evil; if someone dedicated to doing good did nothing but sacrifice of himself to help others all the time without pause, he would soon die and then no one else would be helped. Recognizing that fact isn't evil.

1. Good stands for Altruism
2. Evil is the opposite of Good
3. Doing nothing while others suffer is selfish
4. The world is full of people suffering all the time
5. Resting is evil

In a purely good society, everyone would be utterly altruistic and take care of each other, but such a society will lack pleasure as reading a book or resting instead of helping others is evil.
This will create a perfect yet bleak world where no one lacks anything but joy does not exists, as pleasure is the root of all evil.

Read "The Virtue of Selfishness" , Evil is an important component of society, and us humans as we define ourselves, but so is good.
we are the children of this union and we couldn't possibly exist without both parents.

[Paragon Badger]

1. Good stands for Alturism
2. Evil is the opposite of Good
3. Doing nothing while others suffer is selfish
4. The world is full of people suffering all the time
5. Resting is evil

"Just 60 cents a day, and you could help give children like Amalie a pair of shoes, a meal... a second chance."

[Grey Paladin]

"Just 60 cents a day, and you could help give children like Amalie a pair of shoes, a meal... a second chance."

Fine then, patch'd

1. Good stands for Altruism
2. Evil is the opposite of Good
3. Doing nothing while others suffer is selfish
4. Devoting only part of your resources to helping others that suffer while purposefully keeping some for yourself gives no benefit to those that you would help if you would devout all your resources
5. Keeping resources to yourself while they could be used to help others is selfish
6. The world is full of people suffering all the time
7. Resting is evil


To the Author: The question is this: is your morality based on D&D, Religion, or Philosophy? because in truth both selfishness and altruism are required for a society to function, and evil, while opposite to good, is not necessarily bad.
I consider myself Lawful Evil and one of my best friends is Lawful Good, while our views on some subjects are opposite we are very much alike, Personality defines someone far more strongly then alignment.

[dr.cello]

It is probably not a very good Ultimate Evil, but Mr. Teatime from Terry Pratchett's Hogfather is a very good evil character. Actually, most of Pterry's villains. Though I maintain my previous post as a good example of Ultimate Evil, they make for some of the most convincing villains I've ever read.

[Pestlepup]

Wait, so there's too much focus on helping everyone else and not enough on slaughtering the people who live in the multiverse, and this is bad for the welfare of those who live in the multiverse? Let's think that one through again, shall we?

Random killing is evil in the same sense that whacking a random pedestrian over the head with a rubber mallet is funny. True, it might technically fit the bill, but it accomplishes nothing. Evil isn't about murdering, it's about power. The power to do as you want without some meddling kids soiling your fun. And of course, abusing that power to the farthest extent, but that's a given. However, first you have to gain the power. Only when you're established well enough to have set yourself in a position where no one, and I mean absolutely no one, can touch you, then you're good to drown as many kittens as you please.

Belkar, strangely enough, gives us a fine example of the varieties of evil in his internal debate on whether or not to interfere in the assassination attempt on Hinjo. One persona represents his short-term capacity and desire to do evil, while the other is obviously long-term evil. As it turns out, by committing a deed that would be considered good, he has promoted his ability to do more evil in the future. That is how truly evil beings should think. Not on the "me kill much" train of thought (that accomplishes very little and endangers your future endeavors), but on the grand scale, how to be able to maximize one's potential for evil in the end.

Just as paladins aren't required to be Lawful Stupid, True Evil doesn't translate into being an idiot either. Anyone can slaughter, systematic evil takes wits and gonads.

[Grey Paladin]

Random killing is not Evil, evil must always be calculated because, unlike Good, Evil is based upon logic.

Randomly killing other living creatures for no purpose is, more then anything, useless, unless performing a task harms others AND empowers the performer the task is not evil, as it is not selfish.

[AkumaWolf]

What's that old saying again?
You get a bad-guy and you get a villain...

The bad-guys are just randomly evil and fill the roll as evil cannon-fodder.

But the villain has ideals, dreams and hard work tied to his evil plans.


The best kind of villain in my opinion is the type that feel that they're the good guys.
Those that feel that they're doing the world a favor with their evil deeds.

No kind of diplomacy check can dampen *that* evil spirit.

[Grey Paladin]

You seem to base your words upon the mistaken assumption that Good is in the right . . .

[magicwalker]

@^: It's a matter of perspective.

But of course Good is in the right, otherwise they would be Evil...

"I think the Jedi are Evil!"

"Then you are truly lost!"

[Grey Paladin]

@^: It's a matter of perspective.

But of course Good is in the right, otherwise they would be Evil...

"I think the Jedi are Evil!"

"Then you are truly lost!"

But of course the English are in the right!, otherwise they would be Scottish...

[Lapak]

You could, if it fits thematically, also take a cue from Satoris Banewreaker.

If her actions are brutal, who drove her to it?

Ao is Good? Who says so? Him? Where is his goodness and mercy for the 'evil' creatures of the world?

Does she not reward and cherish the ones who serve her, and save her destruction for the 'Good' people who are trying to destroy her?

If she was just ressurected, is she not the one who was victimized and slain? How do they know that she is the oppressor, the aggressor, the destroyer? They are depending on accounts from others - others with a bias.

[dr.cello]

You seem to base your words upon the mistaken assumption that Good is in the right . . .

Oh come now. Good and evil are by definition right and wrong, respectively. If you're doing the right thing, you're doing good; if you're doing the wrong thing, you're doing evil. Conversely, if you're doing good, you're doing the right thing, and if you're doing evil, you're doing the wrong thing. They're synonymous terms.

To argue that Evil, as such, is right, is to argue based on an inherent contradiction. What you could do is argue that the traditional notion of good is not actually the right thing (and thus that it is not actually good), or you could argue that there is no good and evil (and thus no right or wrong), only perceptions. But to argue that Good is wrong and Evil is right is, well, just not possible. You're running into a definition error.

[Pestlepup]

Random killing is not Evil, evil must always be calculated because, unlike Good, Evil is based upon logic.

Randomly killing other living creatures for no purpose is, more then anything, useless, unless performing a task harms others AND empowers the performer the task is not evil, as it is not selfish.

Well, by random I mean killing people with little to gain from the actual act. Though you'd have to argue pretty convincingly before I'd be willing to concede that killing just for the heck of it isn't evil. It's useless, true, I've said that much myself, but it is still evil.

And good is based on logic. It's not based on the same logic that evil is, but logic nevertheless. Or rather, good and evil follow the same train of thought, but it is at the end, the conclusion, at which they diverge. Logic is a tool for pursuing reasoned thought. The reason, however, is always left to the individual to decide.

In a sense, evil is a philosophical path of least resistance. That is, it will favor choices that benefit the (self the) most with the least expenditure of personal effort. Or, benefit oneself over others. Good, on the other hand, attempts to create (or at the very least sustain a belief in) a better world for all individuals. It would require great effort with little chance of success, so it is not a particularily tempting path for the self-involved.

Then of course, beyond simply selfish evil, there is philosophical evil, but that one's a tad more convoluted. Suffice to say, that from a personal standpoint, it makes less sense than philosophical good. Unless one's a nihilist of sorts, that is.

EDIT:

Oh come now. Good and evil are by definition right and wrong, respectively.

Hear hear! One can run logic circles around conceptions of good and evil, but the fundamental premise cannot be changed by witty word-play. As dr.cello said, you can, by way of argument, attempt to prove that our notions of good and evil are flawed, but it still does not make good evil.