Loosely-organized attempts at prose and wisdom from an incredibly unwise individual.
The Problem of Evil
Posted 15th October 2008 at 02:33 AM by Verdande
Or: Why I Never Use Alignment
Now before anybody gets the wrong idea, let it be said that this isn't one of those troll-bait, flame questions. This is a serious inquiry into the topic of evil itself. It's a big topic, to be sure, but here's one way to break it down: "What does it mean to be evil in a roleplaying game?"
Most people know what evil means, in and of itself, even if they can't define it in great, broad strokes. They'll point to rape, child molestation, mass murder, callousness, or any other factor. But what does it mean in the context of a roleplaying game, where most people aren't comfortable with the subject?
In many cases, it paints a convenient black hat on a person who is to be killed without remorse. Sometimes, the "bad guy" will wear a literal black hat, or a black, spiky suit of armor, or be a demon. Such things are certainly convenient, but are they realistic? Are they meant to be? Is a person with an alignment of "LE" or "C" (in older systems) a person who can be slain at a whim? Is that what you want to promote in your games?
And then, what does it mean when an entire race of people are "evil"? Case in point: Goblins. In 3rd edition, they were given an alignment of "LE", and then they were basically said to be mean tricksters. That's it? Apparently, all it takes to be lawful evil, on the same scale as an archdevil of the abyss who subjugates his followers under his boots and tortures people into the long, hideous sunset, is to lay traps and attack invaders and try to get lands in the same way that "good" people do- only eviller.
This one is one I can't answer alone, because I haven't used alignment seriously in decades and I've never really had any inkling of an understanding of what, exactly, alignment is to be used for. I've heard a couple arguments, both for and against, but nothing that was revelatory. Mostly it's between people who are moral absolutists and moral relativists who argue semantics and whether or not Batman or the Power Rangers are Chaotic Neutral or what-have-you.
Back to the question: What does it mean to be "evil"? What sorts of things are necessary to put the black hat on a man? What does labelling a person "evil" entail?
To me, there is no evil. Looking at paladins, I see a man who is inflexible, cruel, intolerant, violent, and possibly racist. All things traditionally associated with evil, in its most base forms. "But Mr. Crayon," one may be thinking, "that man is only inflexible in his pursuit of justice, cruel to the evil and unjust, intolerant of oppression, violent to the threats to his community, and racist against monstrous foes! He's not evil, he's good!"
Well, put it into context. Let's say you're a king who has had assassination attempts on yourself, so you're a bit paranoid. You raise taxes so as to better fund your personal spies, bodyguards, and palace. You put into place policies to limit the conspiracies against yourself, so that you can continue your rule. You waste no time in putting down the lives of those who attempt to sabotage your kingdom or the land and property of your subordinates. And yet, a paladin batters down your door, slays your guards, and puts you to the sword for oppression, tyranny, intolerance, violence, and "evil." Are you evil?
It's not for nothing that they say that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
---
What do you think?
(Crossposted, as always, from Sepia Snake Sigil)
Now before anybody gets the wrong idea, let it be said that this isn't one of those troll-bait, flame questions. This is a serious inquiry into the topic of evil itself. It's a big topic, to be sure, but here's one way to break it down: "What does it mean to be evil in a roleplaying game?"
Most people know what evil means, in and of itself, even if they can't define it in great, broad strokes. They'll point to rape, child molestation, mass murder, callousness, or any other factor. But what does it mean in the context of a roleplaying game, where most people aren't comfortable with the subject?
In many cases, it paints a convenient black hat on a person who is to be killed without remorse. Sometimes, the "bad guy" will wear a literal black hat, or a black, spiky suit of armor, or be a demon. Such things are certainly convenient, but are they realistic? Are they meant to be? Is a person with an alignment of "LE" or "C" (in older systems) a person who can be slain at a whim? Is that what you want to promote in your games?
And then, what does it mean when an entire race of people are "evil"? Case in point: Goblins. In 3rd edition, they were given an alignment of "LE", and then they were basically said to be mean tricksters. That's it? Apparently, all it takes to be lawful evil, on the same scale as an archdevil of the abyss who subjugates his followers under his boots and tortures people into the long, hideous sunset, is to lay traps and attack invaders and try to get lands in the same way that "good" people do- only eviller.
This one is one I can't answer alone, because I haven't used alignment seriously in decades and I've never really had any inkling of an understanding of what, exactly, alignment is to be used for. I've heard a couple arguments, both for and against, but nothing that was revelatory. Mostly it's between people who are moral absolutists and moral relativists who argue semantics and whether or not Batman or the Power Rangers are Chaotic Neutral or what-have-you.
Back to the question: What does it mean to be "evil"? What sorts of things are necessary to put the black hat on a man? What does labelling a person "evil" entail?
To me, there is no evil. Looking at paladins, I see a man who is inflexible, cruel, intolerant, violent, and possibly racist. All things traditionally associated with evil, in its most base forms. "But Mr. Crayon," one may be thinking, "that man is only inflexible in his pursuit of justice, cruel to the evil and unjust, intolerant of oppression, violent to the threats to his community, and racist against monstrous foes! He's not evil, he's good!"
Well, put it into context. Let's say you're a king who has had assassination attempts on yourself, so you're a bit paranoid. You raise taxes so as to better fund your personal spies, bodyguards, and palace. You put into place policies to limit the conspiracies against yourself, so that you can continue your rule. You waste no time in putting down the lives of those who attempt to sabotage your kingdom or the land and property of your subordinates. And yet, a paladin batters down your door, slays your guards, and puts you to the sword for oppression, tyranny, intolerance, violence, and "evil." Are you evil?
It's not for nothing that they say that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
---
What do you think?
(Crossposted, as always, from Sepia Snake Sigil)
Total Comments 8
Comments
-
In my campaign, most people are neutral. Evil (as in the D&D sense) is reserved for those going out of their way, those who make an effort to do harm and spread misery and grief - usually demons, devils and priests dedicated to Evil. Similarly, good is reserved for those who sacrifice a lot for others without expecting anything in return - priests dedicated to good, angels, saints, and paladins.
In the past, I treated and saw paladins as you, but two book series changed that:
The Deeds of Paksenarion
The Warlord's Own/Oath of Sword
Since then, paladins in my games are not ruthless killers of all that thinks different, but people chosen by a god, fighting for the good of everyone. They not only have good intentions but divine guidance.Posted 15th October 2008 at 08:53 AM by Fenes
-
The best technique I've used in practice is:
* Good people are willing to sacrifice or risk themselves for others.
* Neutral people may help others if risk or personal cost isn't significant, and may hurt others if personal gain is great and risk/cost to others is small.
* Evil people are willing to hurt others (possibly even greatly) or place them in risk for personal gain.
I examine the actions characters take, and the impact those actions have on the characters and on the world. Good characters try to maximize the benefit they bring to the world, even if they suffer. Neutral characters tend to focus on their benefit first, but often wish to benefit the world (or the parts that affect them) as much as they can without personal risk. Evil people tend to maximize personal benefit even if the world suffers.
In all, it resembles the graph of archetypes here: http://wwwcsif.cs.ucdavis.edu/~leeey/stupidity/basic.htm
Like most alignment debates, the primary point of contention is where you draw the line past which entities are no longer under moral consideration. Who can you harm for your own basic needs? Usually Chaotic Evil humanoids? Monsters? Non-sapient creatures? Plants? The line is, ultimately, subjective.Posted 15th October 2008 at 07:20 PM by RukiTanuki -
Fenes- That's more or less how I've dealt with it, since most people in real life are more or less Neutral, after all. I'll have to take a look at those books, but as it stands, I like the way you've given paladins a way to not be the puffed-up pricks that they have an unfortunate tendency of being. I do like paladins, and I'll definately keep this in consideration next time I run a game featuring them.
RukiTanuki- The article you linked to is pretty excellent, and really well-grounded in what one experiences in real life, although I'm a little fuzzy on what exactly a helpless person is, in the chart, and what sort of things makes one helpless. And you're right, that's the main point, is asking yourself where it's ok to slay things with impunity. I'd suppose that it ties into what sort of game you're playing. If you're playing a high fantasy game, the ugly humanoids are evil rapists and murderers who despise mankind, and its only a matter of pre-emptively killing them before they set fire to your village. If you're playing a game more based in reality, where the people who profess to be holy aren't as spotless as they claim, then it might not be so clear. I guess it's more or less up to your individual group and the general tone of the game, as well as personal tastes.Posted 15th October 2008 at 11:19 PM by Verdande - Verdande, you make very good points; alignment is horribly unrealistic. The only thing I would disagree on is the bit regarding goblins. I would say the issue of all 'monstrous' races being listed as Evil is less a problem with the definition of evil and more a problem with some inherent racism built into the game of D&D. Also note, though, that there are certainly grounds for the argument that goblins are in fact evil. You point out that goblins expand and defend themselves just like the civilized races, but 'eviller,' and that's well and good, but perhaps it's more telling to look at how goblins interact with their own kind within their society. I would venture to say that the goblin social structure is the main reason they're considered evil.
That being said, though, I think it would be perfectly reasonable for a DM to say that all humanoid races are just neutral, trying to advance their own kind how they see fit, and thus the game world would become a vast Malthusian warzone. Blurring the lines like that could be very interesting.
The overarching problem I personally see with alignment is that players use the phrase written on their character sheet, and its concordant explanation in the PHB, to define their character's personality. Perhaps that's just poor roleplaying (in fact given my experience I'd say that's a predominant factor), but the existence of such a codified system of alignment makes it easy for players to do that instead of developing an interesting and nuanced identity. In context of your criticisms, I would argue that the PHB entry for "Lawful Good" is the reason people play Paladins like bastard coated bastards with a supposedly creamy center.
Cheers,
KylePosted 16th October 2008 at 01:54 AM by ExiledinElysium - One easy way to make paladins with more divine guidance, and less pitfalls/problems, is to make detect evil only detect "capital Evil" - people the paladin's god sees fit to die. That way the DM gets some control over the "detect evil - smite evil" mechanic.
I achieve that indirectly, since in my game, only the most extreme cases are evil, so anything the paladin detecs as evil he can (and should) slay, backed by the knowledge that his deed is just. Many enemies are not as easily detected though, and so we don't have much "I solve it by the sword" scenes.
Another consequence I have in game is that paladins are reverred and loved by the people. They are known as divine champions, fighting against evil, and protecting the civilised world. You'd not see town guards harassing paladins, nor many who'd openly slight them. Of course, there are only a few dozen paladins, tops, in the world.Posted 16th October 2008 at 09:38 AM by Fenes - Ultimately, the same complaint can be leveled at every part of a role-playing system. Swords in real life have a tremendous range of attributes and traits, and you can't represent the differences between a barbarian longsword and a katana with one or two slightly different numbers.
Ultimately, the designations of "evil" and "good" are convenient shorthand. They exist to give you a grip on how to play or use characters.Posted 16th October 2008 at 03:40 PM by BrentNewhall - Verdande: Helpless people in that system are defined as those whose choices regularly cause them to suffer to the benefit of others. Those that improve society (by causing more societal gains than they personal loss) are looked upon more favorably than those who lose more than they give others.
A more apt term is Naive people. (Personally, I enjoy the theory but find the labels confusing and unnecessary.)Posted 16th October 2008 at 07:32 PM by RukiTanuki - Kyle- You're right, I hadn't really considered that much, and I could certainly see a DM giving reasons why they're evil. Unless I'm mistaken, though, they don't mention how goblins are evil in the actual text, although its been years since I've cracked open that particular entry. And I one-hundred percent agree with you, that people use alignment as a lazy tool. People tend to use the alignment as a wierd, lazy crutch, judging what their characters do based on the "NG" on their sheets instead of getting in their character's heads, and that is simply unnacceptable.
Fenes- That makes sense, and I like your ideas. Personally, I usually just rename "Smite Evil" to regular ol' "Smite", and then, more or less, make detect evil like you have it, as a sort of "Detect Demons/Maniacs".
Brent_Newhall: I agree with your sentiment, but not so much your examples. Sure, things are unrealistic and convenient for play, but they exist so that we can model things like sword fighting and magic in a game setting. Things like alignment aren't realistic, nor do they seem to correspond with any sort of real-life examples, nor do they seem to cleave to their own internal logic, instead producing a wierd, lop-sided parody of itself that raises more questions than it answers. Your milage may vary, but I've never really found that painting something evil or good really helps anybody getting a grip on their character, at least not as much as putting more three-dimensional attributes to paper would.
RukiTanuki- I was having the exact same problem, with the unusual labels. Thanks for clearing that up, though, I appreciate it.
So a person who donates money to charity, for example, would they be considered Helpless/Naive?Posted 17th October 2008 at 12:30 AM by Verdande
Total Trackbacks 0
And yet another word from our sponsors
