Define evil
- Thread starter Some guy from Ohio
- Start date
The Creator
First Post
But if evil is socialy defined, then isn't goodness socialy defined? Is destruction of goodness not in the catergory of things socialy defined as evil?
Evil is a word we use to describe impulses of the human mind. So is goodness. Yet there is really no evil or goodness, because every impulse has some aspects we define as good, and some we define as evil. Evil is a falsity, a word we use for a concept we cannot grasp.
Evil is a word we use to describe impulses of the human mind. So is goodness. Yet there is really no evil or goodness, because every impulse has some aspects we define as good, and some we define as evil. Evil is a falsity, a word we use for a concept we cannot grasp.
Some guy from Ohio
First Post
Hey!
![:]](http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/devious.png "Devious :]")
Torm
Explorer
Evil - the measure of the difference between what one KNOWS one should do, and what one wants to do.
For example, a little old lady needs help across a busy city street, and you are able to make yourself available to do so. Simply helping means should and want are equal, and your evil score for this situation is 0. Not helping puts should and want a bit apart, so your evil score is a little bit. Pretending to help so that you can run off with her stuff - a little bit further, a little more evil. Pretending to help so you can take her stuff and "accidently" push her under oncoming traffic - much more distant, much more evil. Doing the previous, then using the situation to insinuate yourself into her grieving family's life and steal from them, too - well, you get the idea.
And, yes, this definition does allow for insane people who don't understand the difference, or legitimately think they are doing what they should when doing very "socially broken" things. It's important to remember that this doesn't excuse them from being subject to law and "correctional measures" - law isn't just about preventing evil, it's about maintaining rules for a cohesive society, hopefully but not necessarily with the result of less evil.
The important thing about this definition of evil is justification. There is frequently a mental voice that offers a justification for doing what you want, instead. Perpetrators of evil allow this voice to seduce them. In most people, this seduction only succeeds sometimes, and the subject is usually still aware they did wrong. Some people, though, give in, entirely - become evil.
For example, a little old lady needs help across a busy city street, and you are able to make yourself available to do so. Simply helping means should and want are equal, and your evil score for this situation is 0. Not helping puts should and want a bit apart, so your evil score is a little bit. Pretending to help so that you can run off with her stuff - a little bit further, a little more evil. Pretending to help so you can take her stuff and "accidently" push her under oncoming traffic - much more distant, much more evil. Doing the previous, then using the situation to insinuate yourself into her grieving family's life and steal from them, too - well, you get the idea.
And, yes, this definition does allow for insane people who don't understand the difference, or legitimately think they are doing what they should when doing very "socially broken" things. It's important to remember that this doesn't excuse them from being subject to law and "correctional measures" - law isn't just about preventing evil, it's about maintaining rules for a cohesive society, hopefully but not necessarily with the result of less evil.
The important thing about this definition of evil is justification. There is frequently a mental voice that offers a justification for doing what you want, instead. Perpetrators of evil allow this voice to seduce them. In most people, this seduction only succeeds sometimes, and the subject is usually still aware they did wrong. Some people, though, give in, entirely - become evil.
Steel_Wind
Legend
The one elements which is missing throughout all of these philophical discussions on the natuere and qualiy of evil is the inclusion of the supernatural and extra-planar and its role in defining evil in the game world.
When your touchstone for evil and your discussions of it are based on the words of philosophers and historians and even earthly religious writings, you are going to get some wildly divergent opinions.
And that's why those opinions are all flawed. They are based on different assumptions than those which exist in the game world.
The vast majority of game worlds do have fundamentally different factual underpinnings than our own.
In the game world:
1 - Evil as an extra-planar source factually exists and physically manifests itself on the material plane. It does so frequently, and can even be MADE to do so with an element of predictability (summoning a demon, for example) such that no one can debate its factual existence. It is not a matter of faith.
*True Evil is real*.
2 - Infernal and Abyssal powers may have their own complex motives and machinations, but what distinguishes such True Evil from the garden variety moral relativism discussed in this thread is that True Evil is its OWN purpose. The infernal and abyssal powers seek to do evil for its own sake, because it pleases them and effects a result which they enjoy simply *because* it causes harm and suffering. And I don't mean this in some kinky SM way either - (there are no SSC demons).
* True Evil is alien*
3 - If we view our own history through the lens of True Evil, few events stuck out as does the Holocaust. While it is itself a complex thing, few would doubt that as a deliberate plan of genocide, it was wholly evil. At its genesis is a primal hatred of its victims - and that's instructive. Many destroy and enslave plots from game worlds share those same ruinous effects on the land and its peoples
*True Evil mainfests as a malevolent hatred and despite for its own sake*
And that's the difference in game terms between the moral relativism and ruthless acts discussed above.
If you have a look at the alingment "chaotic evil" and try to comprehend that outlook IRL, I am unable to see how any human being could be viewed as CE without being, in fact, psychotic and insane.
Neutral evil - evil for evil's sake - the same result. That's simply not a human motivation.
Lawful Evil, being far more complex and worldly in its portrayal within the AD&D/D&D mythos is something that we can easily relate to. Many of us would have little difficulty pointing to real world governments, actions and legal regimes which would appear to be "Lawful Evil". Slavery is difficult to comprehend as something other than lawful evil, for example.
Room for debate on the issue of slavery and lawful evil you think?
Perhpas. But I think that's a problem not so much with the banality of "Lawful Evil" as it is a problem with the overly worldy definition of Lawful Evil in the game rulebooks.
So where I am going with this? Simple: True Evil in game terms, is real, it is alien in its motives and origins and it is malevolent towards life itself. It seeks to destroy, dominate and enslave not because those methods are more efficacious, but because those methods are themselves an essential ingredient in expressing and achieving their malevolence.
True Evil beings in game terms are those who seek to promulgate the plans of those infernal and abyssal powers. There is a profound difference between the thief who will kills to gain gold and the High Priest and his minions who seek to spread undeath and destruction in accordance with the plans of an extra-planar demon.
True Evil is easy to recognize in the game world because black & white exists without any need or explanation resulting in shades of grey.
When your touchstone for evil and your discussions of it are based on the words of philosophers and historians and even earthly religious writings, you are going to get some wildly divergent opinions.
And that's why those opinions are all flawed. They are based on different assumptions than those which exist in the game world.
The vast majority of game worlds do have fundamentally different factual underpinnings than our own.
In the game world:
1 - Evil as an extra-planar source factually exists and physically manifests itself on the material plane. It does so frequently, and can even be MADE to do so with an element of predictability (summoning a demon, for example) such that no one can debate its factual existence. It is not a matter of faith.
*True Evil is real*.
2 - Infernal and Abyssal powers may have their own complex motives and machinations, but what distinguishes such True Evil from the garden variety moral relativism discussed in this thread is that True Evil is its OWN purpose. The infernal and abyssal powers seek to do evil for its own sake, because it pleases them and effects a result which they enjoy simply *because* it causes harm and suffering. And I don't mean this in some kinky SM way either - (there are no SSC demons).
* True Evil is alien*
3 - If we view our own history through the lens of True Evil, few events stuck out as does the Holocaust. While it is itself a complex thing, few would doubt that as a deliberate plan of genocide, it was wholly evil. At its genesis is a primal hatred of its victims - and that's instructive. Many destroy and enslave plots from game worlds share those same ruinous effects on the land and its peoples
*True Evil mainfests as a malevolent hatred and despite for its own sake*
And that's the difference in game terms between the moral relativism and ruthless acts discussed above.
If you have a look at the alingment "chaotic evil" and try to comprehend that outlook IRL, I am unable to see how any human being could be viewed as CE without being, in fact, psychotic and insane.
Neutral evil - evil for evil's sake - the same result. That's simply not a human motivation.
Lawful Evil, being far more complex and worldly in its portrayal within the AD&D/D&D mythos is something that we can easily relate to. Many of us would have little difficulty pointing to real world governments, actions and legal regimes which would appear to be "Lawful Evil". Slavery is difficult to comprehend as something other than lawful evil, for example.
Room for debate on the issue of slavery and lawful evil you think?
Perhpas. But I think that's a problem not so much with the banality of "Lawful Evil" as it is a problem with the overly worldy definition of Lawful Evil in the game rulebooks.
So where I am going with this? Simple: True Evil in game terms, is real, it is alien in its motives and origins and it is malevolent towards life itself. It seeks to destroy, dominate and enslave not because those methods are more efficacious, but because those methods are themselves an essential ingredient in expressing and achieving their malevolence.
True Evil beings in game terms are those who seek to promulgate the plans of those infernal and abyssal powers. There is a profound difference between the thief who will kills to gain gold and the High Priest and his minions who seek to spread undeath and destruction in accordance with the plans of an extra-planar demon.
True Evil is easy to recognize in the game world because black & white exists without any need or explanation resulting in shades of grey.
Last edited:
Jeremy Ackerman-Yost
Explorer
It's true. All internet conversations ultimately come down to the Nazis...
To be clear, I'm not defending this thought process or its result. But let's not pretend that the motivations for doing evil are "fake", "small", or in any way hard to understand. If they were, why would anyone bother? Evil needs to be either self-gratifying or expedient (preferably both), or its obviously inferior to good.
While I'm on the subject of the Holocaust:
How about this: We can still find lots and lots of Jews. The Holocaust is rather notable as a FAILED genocide. Go find me a Canaanite. They didn't get so lucky.
His reason, however inadequate to the act, was neither fake nor small. He wanted to rebuild the crippled and despondent German nation. Best way to do that was to get the people motivated. Best way to do that was to appeal to their baser instincts. So, you unite them against some scapegoat group who is a)ubiquitous, and b) sufficiently alien. Jews were (and are) everwhere. Jews tended (still do) to maintain their own communities, traditions, and even language (though not to the exclusion of the common language, at least). That made them sufficiently different. They tended, in that time and place, to be more prosperous than their neighbors (and still do). This made it easy to turn envy loose on them (still is - see Farrakan (Sp?)). Combine their deliberate social separation, their prosperity, and their ubiquitousness, and they are perfect targets for conspiracy theories and envy. Of course, once Hitler had the motivated populace he wanted, there was no reason to call them off of the Jews. In fact, since it was a pillar of the process, he couldn't. Besides, he had gone to all the trouble of dehumanizing these people. Might as well get labor camps and medical experiments out of it.The Creator said:
To be clear, I'm not defending this thought process or its result. But let's not pretend that the motivations for doing evil are "fake", "small", or in any way hard to understand. If they were, why would anyone bother? Evil needs to be either self-gratifying or expedient (preferably both), or its obviously inferior to good.
While I'm on the subject of the Holocaust:
Why? It was neither as total as many others nor as recent. How is it different than the systematic eradication of many native American groups by the Spanish, English, and Americans? It happened a bit faster and killed a LOT less people. And it was honest. None of the "please take these blankets for your children" crap. At least the Germans were honest about it. In what way other than scale is it different than what's going on in the Sudan right now? Or what's happened to the Kurds on and off for a long time?Steel_Wind said:
How about this: We can still find lots and lots of Jews. The Holocaust is rather notable as a FAILED genocide. Go find me a Canaanite. They didn't get so lucky.
Incenjucar
Legend
As has probably been mentioned, alignment (at least in regards to good and evil), is entirely based on -internal- (not what you convince yourself) intent.
With that, there's a scenario where any physical action conceavable could be considered a good act, albeit via the "Do this mean thing to save the world, destroying yourself in the proccess." method for the nastier ones.
With that, there's a scenario where any physical action conceavable could be considered a good act, albeit via the "Do this mean thing to save the world, destroying yourself in the proccess." method for the nastier ones.
Similar Threads
