The Problem of Evil [Forked From Ampersand: Wizards & Worlds]

[Shemeska]

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.

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

Orcs in my world are EVIL. There is no psychological or philosophical discussion.

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.

 

[Jasperak]

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

 

[nightwyrm]

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.

 

[Rechan]

Stuff

Exactly.

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.

 

[Jasperak]

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.

 

[Admiral Caine]

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.

 

[Rechan]

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.

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?

 

[Jasperak]

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?

 

[Jasperak]

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.