General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
The Problem of Evil [Forked From Ampersand: Wizards & Worlds]
Forked from: Ampersand: Wizards and Worlds
Scott had some pretty interesting thoughts over in that thread, but I figured a new thread would be better to discuss some of his ideas.
Quote:
A while ago me and a co-worker were talking about the idea that sometimes "evil" is merely a matter of perspective. To humans, a shark that eats people off the beach may be bad or evil, but to the shark it is just doing what it does. Maybe orcs and giants are the same? Is it just in an orc's nature to attack and plunder villages. From the orc's perspective they are just being orcs and it the humans and dwarves are the bad guys.
I wanna say that we've tread this ground well before, but for the sake of completeness, here's the thing:
"Evil" in fiction isn't the same thing as evil in the real world.
Specifically, the idea of "cosmic evil" is pretty deeply ingrained in the Fantasy genre as a whole, and its origins in myths and legends (and its main development in the modern era through a distinctly Christian figure in Tolkein).
In most fantasy, evil isn't just misunderstood. It is baby-eating, puppy-kicking-capital-E-Evil, to a level as deep as the soul. It is a direct choice to align one with quick and easy power at the expense of everything good about you. From the orcs in LotR to Lord Voldemort in HP to Sephiroth in Final Fantasy, evil is on a deep and cosmic scale. You know what you're doing. You're tossing in your lot with those who revel in raising the bones of the dead to fight those that were once their friends for the sheer schadenfreude of it, for your own glory, for personal gain over the gain of the world.
This was emulated pretty well by the old alignment system and old cosmology assumptions: when you killed an orc, it wasn't the same as killing a shark, because when you killed an orc, you killed something that had paid for power with its soul.
Now a sort of postmodern fantasy is possible, but then the central motifs of the D&D game (such as Killing Things and Taking Their Stuff) take on a much more disturbing kind of tone.
In the Real World, a shark isn't considered evil or bad for eating a swimmer much these days (anyone who watches the Discovery Channel could tell you sharks get a bad rap). Exterminating sharks so that we can be safer in the waters or even so we can eat the fish that they were eating is largely considered a much more vile thing to do than the shark eating something that it thought was a dying seal and that happened to be some guy on a surfboard.
If PCs killed orcs simply for being orcs, then the game gets pretty disturbing parallels pretty quickly.
Quote:
I thought this idea could create some interesting ideas for characters. In a simple sense I like to think of it as cowboys and indians (I know not to PC but it works). To the cowboys, it is the indians who are the savages that interfere in the cowboys "civilized" ways, although I would say now it is generally thought that the indians were the peaceful society who was pushed to the the point of warfare and sometime savagery. What if the this was the same with the struggle between races in D&D. What if the heroes thought they were doing good plundering dungeons and killing monsters only to later realize they were actually on the wrong side of the fight. I'll freely admit my initial thought was taken from WoW (Horde is not evil by nature, they are just on a different side of the same coin) but I think this notion could be fun in a D&D campaign.
I'm kind of surprised you got this idea from WoW when EBERRON IS SITTING RIGHT THERE. The noble warrior culture of the goblinoids there? Heck, even the old story about the elf/orc rivalry and how Gruumsh lost his eye is basically a story of a land-grab that someone didn't get invited to. Seriously, there's a lot more than WoW.
Really, this is something that all modern fantasy has to address in some way. A lot of fantasy archetypes are based on old racist stereotypes about other groups of humans. Racism wasn't always bad, so we had things like dwarves with obvious parallels to Jewish stereotypes, for instance (more than just dwarves, really -- remember old gnomes with their big noses?). Modern fantasy all has to re-contextualize that so that it's at least palatable.
Making "evil" humanoids not necessarily evil is an old idea that dates back to at LEAST 2e, and is well present throughout 3e and even more influential in 4e. Conflicts are more nuanced that Cosmic Good vs. Cosmic Evil in a lot of source material, but Cosmic Good vs. Cosmic Evil remains a strong fantasy archetype.
I mean, in part, this is what some of the people reacting against the "Good planes are always boring" idea are saying: Good vs. Evil isn't the only conflict in our repertoire.
It's an interesting direction to take, which is why it's been done a lot, especially in the last 10-15 years as people begin to react against Tolkeinish fantasy. But that doesn't mean that the big cosmic conflict concept is ignored (as Harry Potter has shown, it is alive and well, just one of a myriad possibilities!). 4e dodges Cosmic Conflict mostly, but allows it to still be present, which is a pretty good middle ground, and opens up the game a little more than older editions were inclined to do, which is quite nice.
Quote:
I like the idea of the evil character who seeks redemption. What if halfway through a particular campaign the hero, who thought they were on a quest from a noble lord, starts to realize that they are actually working for a despot? Instead of working as hired heroes, they realize they are actually hired muscle beating up on the good guys. Could make for a fun and dynamic campaign as well as good character development as the PCs must seek true redemption from their victims and work to defeat their former employer.
Isn't that the stereotype? The guy asking for help in the tavern is probably a wizard who will use all the MacGuffins you give him to destroy you and your party? Isn't that half of 1e adventures? Your PC's do something to inadvertently doom the world and then have to save it? (Desert of Desolation comes to mind pretty strongly)
Heck, the campaign I'm running right now, using the 3e book Elder Evils has that has one of the plotlines, and it was explicitly encouraged by that book!
Because its such a stereotype, it's almost more notable when your PC's AREN'T sent on mysterious missions that end up dooming you.
In most fantasy, evil isn't just misunderstood. It is baby-eating, puppy-kicking-capital-E-Evil, to a level as deep as the soul. It is a direct choice to align one with quick and easy power at the expense of everything good about you. From the orcs in LotR to Lord Voldemort in HP to Sephiroth in Final Fantasy, evil is on a deep and cosmic scale. You know what you're doing. You're tossing in your lot with those who revel in raising the bones of the dead to fight those that were once their friends for the sheer schadenfreude of it, for your own glory, for personal gain over the gain of the world.
This was emulated pretty well by the old alignment system and old cosmology assumptions: when you killed an orc, it wasn't the same as killing a shark, because when you killed an orc, you killed something that had paid for power with its soul.
But, here's the important thing: the issue of Nature vs. Nurture.
We're all familiar with the old argument "Is it okay to butcher baby orcs?" Are Orcs born evil, it being a fundamental aspect of their very being, or is it merely a cultural affect/tenant of worshipping Gruumsh?
Because apparently you can have evil humans, dwarves, and other demi-humans, but you couldn't get away with killing baby humans because "they will just grow up to be evil." You can't even get away with butchering the babies of evil humans.
But it seems to me that a lot of people assume Orcs = Cosmically evil, no question, born that way. If Orcs were in the PHB, they'd be up in arms.
I propose that it genuinely depends on the DM's campaign setting, what assumptions he hands down about various races/monsters, and how alignment behaves in his game.
My fear is that this thread is just going ot turn into a big alignment cesspit. I've participated in far too many "Must an assassin be Evil?" threads to know that every person has their own definitions/assumptions about Alignment and that trying to argue them leads to nothing but headaches.
I consider it a challenge to participate in a thread like this and not get banned.
To the point, I cannot fathom how any person could consider a small group of orcs driving flaming wagons filled with pitch and tar into villages not evil. In stories and real life, it really is about us v. them, humans v. orcs. Only philosophers are allowed to stand on the sidelines and cast judgments. But remember, if the orcs see you as human, it doesn't matter if you identify with them, or feel their plight. Orcs see you as the enemy and will not stop to ask where your loyalties lie. Unless you become an orc, you are a human and fit for nothing more than food.
__________________ "Your imagination, limited only by your chosen powers"
But, here's the important thing: the issue of Nature vs. Nurture.
We're all familiar with the old argument "Is it okay to butcher baby orcs?" Are Orcs born evil, it being a fundamental aspect of their very being, or is it merely a cultural affect/tenant of worshipping Gruumsh?
Because apparently you can have evil humans, dwarves, and other demi-humans, but you couldn't get away with killing baby humans because "they will just grow up to be evil." You can't even get away with butchering the babies of evil humans.
But it seems to me that a lot of people assume Orcs = Cosmically evil, no question, born that way. If Orcs were in the PHB, they'd be up in arms.
You make an interesting point on nature v. nurture, although I question any psychology derived from playing RPGs. Seriously, if people are using RPGs to help them figure out their thoughts on the nature of EVIL, we are ed!
RPGS have true or Cosmically evil for a reason. RPGs by their definition are games and I know I don't want to have an existential awakening spring forth from them. I play to have fun, not question the reason for being.
I am going to cast a serious judgement here: if someone is using an RPG to work through their thoughts on life, they need professional help. I would seriously council anyone that played a Paladin that couldn't kill a baby orc in my game.
__________________ "Your imagination, limited only by your chosen powers"
As far as I see it Cosmic Evil is okay (leaving aside some personal issues with it that aren't relevant to this discussion) but the main objection I'd hold on to is the assigning of it by race/species. That seems to be the real sticking point in my mind: not "can I kill the Evil person" but "can I kill someone who's of a race given the Evil label".
You make an interesting point on nature v. nurture, although I question any psychology derived from playing RPGs. Seriously, if people are using RPGs to help them figure out their thoughts on the nature of EVIL, we are ed!
RPGS have true or Cosmically evil for a reason. RPGs by their definition are games and I know I don't want to have an existential awakening spring forth from them. I play to have fun, not question the reason for being.
I am going to cast a serious judgement here: if someone is using an RPG to work through their thoughts on life, they need professional help. I would seriously council anyone that played a Paladin that couldn't kill a baby orc in my game.
I... don't understand where you got the impression I'm suggesting that discussing whether Orcs are born evil or evil because they choose to be is somehow a philosophical question to discern feelings about how someon efeels about evil in RL. I'm not proposing that at all.
Questioning alignment, and its role in the game and in the story is a time-honored tradition of discussion about D&D. Quibbling over paladins codes is as old as paladin codes. Remember, alignment has, until 4e came along, been married to the system. So, discerning how alignment behaves in the gameworld is important because the rules were glued to alignment.
If a Paladin killed a baby orc and the baby orc is not evil, then the paladin did an evil act, and his status as a paladin is in question. If the baby orc is in fact evil, the paladin's alignment is not in question. This discussion has been around for decades. In my games, orcs are not evil by birth. Therefore, if a paladin kills a baby orc, then I'm shooting his paladin-hood in the head.
D&D has always had some races or monsters that have had: ALWAYS EVIL in their statblock. Others have "USUALLY EVIL". Others have NEUTRAL. If it has "SOMETIMES, or USUALLY", then that means that the monster decides that based on free will. If it has ALWAYS, then that means it is a Cosmic thing, something that is universal to that monster from birth.
My point is pointing to those things and saying "Take that into consideration" and, "How does alignment in this manner play a role in your game?" Many people I have met are of the opinion that, despite the MM saying Red Dragons are always Chaotic Evil, in their games red dragons are not automatically evil; it depends on the dragon.
I propose that it genuinely depends on the DM's campaign setting, what assumptions he hands down about various races/monsters, and how alignment behaves in his game.
My fear is that this thread is just going ot turn into a big alignment cesspit. I've participated in far too many "Must an assassin be Evil?" threads to know that every person has their own definitions/assumptions about Alignment and that trying to argue them leads to nothing but headaches.
Directly answering your edit:
If the DM is using the orcs as a culture analogous to one we would find in real life, yes, there may be an issue. Tolkien smartly did not allow anyone to question where the orcs stood. They were EVIL.
If the DM wants to blur the line with respects to cultures and alignments, thats his choice, but quite frankly, if a DM wants to penalize a paladin for killing baby orcs, I'm out. Again in more specific terms, I do not play RPGs to work through my issues with life and question anyone that does.
From a more general standpoint:
Screw alignment. Orcs that want to attack my village are evil and need to be eradicated.
__________________ "Your imagination, limited only by your chosen powers"
Again in more specific terms, I do not play RPGs to work through my issues with life and question anyone that does.
Again. It's not about "Working through issues". Part of it is playing in a word that isn't Black and White, where the plot is a bit more complex than "they're evil, therefore they attack us, and thus we kill them."
If the Orcs are attacking your village because someone from your village snuck into their encampment and stole their Idol to Gruumsh, then they're not attacking your village because they're evil orcs, they're doing it because they want the idol back.
As PCs, the plot can be "Find out who took the idol and give it back to prevent the village being sieged."
The Orcs could be laying siege to the village because some out-of-town human paid the orcs to destroy the town so he can buy the land. Sure, they're evil orcs and that's why they're doing it.
But for the PCs, "They're orcs, attacking villages is what they do, so we kill them" is going to cause the plot thread to be lost, and now the Evil Human is going to get assassins to kill the PCs.
If you want to say "I fight orcs cuz they're evil and I don't want to think about they why of it", that's fine. But I don't appreciate the "If you care about the why of it, you've clearly got issues". I am not using D&D as therapy. I am simply not using the blanket statement of "They do it because they're evil and that's that" for orcs.
Rechan, I don't want to fill my response with your post so I will answer like so.
Orcs in my world are EVIL. There is no psychological or philosophical discussion. DMs that put those kinds of questions in a GAME belong in theology and philosophical classes at a local college not running a GAME.
That is the baseline from which I game.
I am not going to rush my response to the rest of your points until I have had enough time to carefully consider what you have said and can formulate a well-reasoned response.
__________________ "Your imagination, limited only by your chosen powers"
Cosmic evil becomes overused and meaningless unless you keep it for the only beings that honestly need and deserve the title - actual fiends. Demons, devils, 'loths, gehreleths, night hags, hordelings, bezikiras, etc etc.
Mortals unless you include some flavor text involving fiendish pacts, racial curses, etc shouldn't be painted with the broad brush of they are always EVIL, because it rapidly can descend into a case of 'they're evil because they're different and thus they're evil'. Even painting the undead with that sort of brush seems shallow to me, and it's overly restrictive too, since it doesn't allow for the exceptions to what might seem a rule in-game. Woah the lich descended into undeath, sacrificing his mortality and afterlife to secure the worldly safety of his people? But but but he's a lich and they're not supposed to be heroes. He's supposed to be evil! Etc etc.
Exceptions are fun. Alignment straightjackets are not. And it's even doubly so when the straightjacketing is tighter even as the alignment options and supposed reliance on alignment go down.
__________________ "I can just see the 4e adventure anthology "Tale from the Limited Staircase"." - Ken Marable
Are they born EVIL? And so this is just a convenience thing for you? I'm not calling you out, I just want to know, that's all.
Yes they are. It is convenient because none of the players I have played with want to waste time dealing with the nature of EVIL in their GAME. Philosophical discussions get in the way of XP and GP
__________________ "Your imagination, limited only by your chosen powers"
Yes they are. It is convenient because none of the players I have played with want to waste time dealing with the nature of EVIL in their GAME. Philosophical discussions get in the way of XP and GP
PCs in my game are the same. We have too little time to play to debate the nature of evil. If there are things standing in the way of loot and plot, those things are ENEMIES, no one cares if they're orcs, humans, elves, etc.
To me, there are only two reasons why anything should be "Always Evil, no questions."
1) It is a representation of the plane of existence it comes from, and really, a representation of Cosmic Evil. Demons are evil because their entire form is saturated with the essence of the Abyss.
2) It was Made to be that way. Tolkien orcs are a good example of this; they were made to be Sauron's forces. In my campaign setting, harpies are the result of a cursed people, so their existence is a blight. Gnolls were created by Yeenoghu; he created hyenas. When hyena eat a mortal's soul, they become gnolls, who then begin to worship Yeenoghu and demons in general. Evil is in their origins, and exceptions are individuals that have things happen to them (a gnoll gaining its own soul, for instance).
Now. I do recognize the need for Always Evil monsters. Or at least, irredeemable mosnters/races. Part of this is so that the PCs don't have to question their motives. Sometimes, if the PCs are dealing with delicate situations, having to deal with intrigue, or feel the need to find out the cause of their opponents, sometimes you just want to go kill something that you don't have to worry about. Among other things, this can be a cethardic "palate cleansor" between moral quandry adventures.
For Jasperak and many, this is orcs. In my campaign, it's gnolls. There's fiends and such out there you can do it with too. You can feel just utterly justified in kicking their butt.
Cosmic evil becomes overused and meaningless unless you keep it for the only beings that honestly need and deserve the title - actual fiends. Demons, devils, 'loths, gehreleths, night hags, hordelings, bezikiras, etc etc.
Mortals unless you include some flavor text involving fiendish pacts, racial curses, etc shouldn't be painted with the broad brush of they are always EVIL, because it rapidly can descend into a case of 'they're evil because they're different and thus they're evil'. Even painting the undead with that sort of brush seems shallow to me, and it's overly restrictive too, since it doesn't allow for the exceptions to what might seem a rule in-game. Woah the lich descended into undeath, sacrificing his mortality and afterlife to secure the worldly safety of his people? But but but he's a lich and they're not supposed to be heroes. He's supposed to be evil! Etc etc.
Exceptions are fun. Alignment straightjackets are not. And it's even doubly so when the straightjacketing is tighter even as the alignment options and supposed reliance on alignment go down.
To keep it easy for me to understand at 11:30pm EST on a Friday, Orcs and their allies are EVIL. In our games there is no question, they want to kill us. Just because there was a Drizzit, we do not assume Drow may be non-hostile. One Orc or one Drow that doesn't want to kill us is the exception not the rule. They are assumed to be evil because the game world demands it. Is it because they are different, who cares? They are the antagonists. They stand in the way of the heroes and their quests. It is SIMPLE dramtic structure. I have never, nor have any DMs I played under tried to emulate Shakespeare in their games. The nature of evil is meaningless with respects to proteagonist v. antagonist.
__________________ "Your imagination, limited only by your chosen powers"
A while ago me and a co-worker were talking about the idea that sometimes "evil" is merely a matter of perspective. To humans, a shark that eats people off the beach may be bad or evil, but to the shark it is just doing what it does.
Replying to the whole community along with Scott....
To jump mediums, this is the 'Galactus Justification' from Marvel Comics.
Galactus is a space god that eats living planets to sustain itself. While the sentients of the universe may abhor Galactus, he equates himself with a force of nature. No more beholden to moral judgments and condemnations than a tornado.
And that works, in that context.
The problem with the D&D Genre (because it is a genre unto itself) is that the PCs are often opposed by forces that don't merely do things to survive.. they do awful things out of pleasure. Acts which are not required for any reason or motive other than the delight of the perpetrator at the expense of the victim.
You can re-imagine certain races, like orcs for example, in the World of Warcraft motif.. as a noble savage race, with a different code of ethics.
But the Core Game still has lots of enemies that just get their jollies by the suffering of others. Going back to the original point, they're not like Galactus. They are not sharks, impersonally attacking for food or some natural imperative (like territory). It is personal, and often unnecessary to survival.
And that sort of evil is inherent to the Genre that is Dungeon and Dragons.
Though I suppose you could make a campaign that de-emphasized that, but I think you'd need to start from scratch.
__________________ Here's your first clue: I'm watching you!
Yes they are. It is convenient because none of the players I have played with want to waste time dealing with the nature of EVIL in their GAME. Philosophical discussions get in the way of XP and GP
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightwyrm
PCs in my game are the same. We have too little time to play to debate the nature of evil. If there are things standing in the way of loot and plot, those things are ENEMIES, no one cares if they're orcs, humans, elves, etc.
If that's the case, then why are you in a thread about dealing with the nature of evil in our games and debating philosophy?
Rechan, my guess is that you try to create or play in world that is dynamic like real life. In the real world, motives can be assigned to any culture and questioned by another. Evil is GENERALLY a objective term applied only to the truly evil like demons from the Abyss. Would this be a correct assesment?
__________________ "Your imagination, limited only by your chosen powers"
If that's the case, then why are you in a thread about dealing with the nature of evil in our games and debating philosophy?
I'm offering the counter-point to Scott's thoughts about evil and the perspectives they derive from. Scott implies that evil is just a matter of perspective. I argue that evil is not. Evil in my games is defined by that which wishes to prevent the characters from attaining their goals. If their goal is to protect their village, then the Orcs that are attacking it are evil. It may just be a matter of how deep we are looking into a GAME for its merits on the nature of evil.
__________________ "Your imagination, limited only by your chosen powers"
![The Problem of Evil [Forked From Ampersand: Wizards & Worlds]](http://www.enworld.org/forum/iconimages/general-rpg-discussion/problem-evil-forked-ampersand-wizards-worlds_ltr.gif)
The noble warrior culture of the goblinoids there? Heck, even the old story about the elf/orc rivalry and how Gruumsh lost his eye is basically a story of a land-grab that someone didn't get invited to. Seriously, there's a lot more than WoW. 
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
