How do you handle evil?

[le Redoutable]

or perhaps Evil guys know why they're Evil, like if something like " the dark side of the Force " had happened to them :

one explanation is given in the thread Major + minor

Major + minor

let's call them 1,2,3,4,5 you assemble a Major + a minor example 1+2 try this : ex 1: 1+2,2+1,3+4,4+3 ===> no 5 instead of ex 2: 1+2,2+1,3+5,5+6,6+3 so now Conan uses ex 1, with a lack in Magic use ( say no 5 ) ( lol I wonder if some psychiatrists use also the ex 1 :) ) et voilà !

www.enworld.org

 

[MGibster]

mean, if you leave out where he's shot people for littering

Accidental littering at that. But then characters with decades of stories often have weird aspects that are ignored today. Even Batman used to kill though never for littering.

 

[le Redoutable]

another way to understand Evil :
Evil guys want to climb up levels at the maximum rate;
this can be achieved by using a minimum of values, doctrines, gifts or the like
while Good guys love to imagine the complexity of the Real World and try to attune themselves to Reality using ( perhaps ) dedication and care ; of course the more you use virtues and the more slowly you will train them all ( is this conceivable ? )
I had a system in which level advancement was slow for ( let's call them ) Good people until name level ( i.e. 250.000 xp of 1st Ed ) , after which to climb a level used the following formula
an Evil Guy using 15 points of Virtues
while
a Good guy using 120 points of Virtues
xp required

level -- Bad -- Good
1 ------ 15 --- 120
2 ------ 30 --- 250
3 ------ 60 --- 500
4 ----- 120 -- 1000
5 ----- 240 -- 2000
6 ----- 480 -- 4000
7 ----- 960 -- 8000
8 --- 2000 -- 16000
9 --- 4000 -- 32000
10 -- 8000 -- 64000

the formula is 10.000.000 divided by #Virtue points
so Good Guy with 125 V.P. has a Max doubling of xp at 10.000.000 / 125 ===> 80.000 xp
while a Bad Guy with 15 V.P. has a Max doubling of xp at 10.000.000 / 15 ===> 660.000 xp

( well, a lot of fun until now )

 

[Umbran]

I don't see him shooting anyone.

So to you, he isn't evil because the target got lucky? Okay, then...

Plus, I would put this panel in the same category as the ones where Superman and Batman just go around acting like dicks.

That panel is only one bit in a series. Eventually Spidey has to capture him, and he's put on trial (where we see other examples of his violent, deadly abuses) and found guilty and thrown in jail.

It was so bad that three years later, they had to retcon it when they gave him his own series. When the character is so bad you have to change history to make them palatable, there's a problem.

 

[HaroldTheHobbit]

Nowadays I don't run with explicit player character alignment, and I don't allow evil characters in a wider sense. The premise is always that the party are the good guys. That may include lots of grayscale, but in the end the party are heroes fighting evil.

Other game systems may have a much darker tone and be fun, but for me D&D is a game about zero to hero, not zero to cackling villain.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't see him shooting anyone. Plus, I would put this panel in the same category as the ones where Superman and Batman just go around acting like dicks.

Immediately after he shoots that couple, panic ensues. A cab that was trying to get away from the gunfire runs a red light and gets shot by him for it. In the comic you see the cab striking a lamp post and the driving crashing through the windshield and impacting the pavement head first. We've seen him kill people for jay walking.

It's pretty established that he's a right evil bastage.

 

[RuinousPowers]

So to you, he isn't evil because the target got lucky? Okay, then...



That panel is only one bit in a series. Eventually Spidey has to capture him, and he's put on trial (where we see other examples of his violent, deadly abuses) and found guilty and thrown in jail.

It was so bad that three years later, they had to retcon it when they gave him his own series. When the character is so bad you have to change history to make them palatable, there's a problem.

I don't claim to be a student of Punisher lore, but that's not the interpretation I'm used to seeing. I'm more familiar with his run as a hero, not as a villain.

Just like this wouldn't be a normal interpretation of Superman.

So, to clarify, Punisher as a vigilante who ruthlessly eliminates criminals isn't evil. Just like a D&D mercenary who is hired to kill other armed combatants, regardless of their alignment, isn't necessarily evil.

 

[prabe]

So, to clarify, Punisher as a vigilante who ruthlessly eliminates criminals isn't evil. Just like a D&D mercenary who is hired to kill other armed combatants, regardless of their alignment, isn't necessarily evil.

The Punisher as he was originally conceived was a vigilante who ruthlessly eliminated criminals and had no sense of proportion about it. To him, any lawbreaker was a criminal who deserved elimination. His representation/conception has ... evolved, over the decades. He was a loner antihero, then more like a straight-up hero who was willing to kill, if the threat warranted it.

Where in that evolution he stopped being evil is, I suspect, something different people will see differently.

 

[MGibster]

So, to clarify, Punisher as a vigilante who ruthlessly eliminates criminals isn't evil.

The Punisher you’re used to seeing routinely murdered helpless people. Stiltman being a good example. Stiltman lay helpless on the ground when Frank just slowly and casually pulls his pistol and shoots him a few times in the head.

 

[payn]

The Punisher you’re used to seeing routinely murdered helpless people. Stiltman being a good example. Stiltman lay helpless on the ground when Frank just slowly and casually pulls his pistol and shoots him a few times in the head.

No half measures.