Evil: individuals or entire nations?

[MerakSpielman]

I've been thinking about the nature of "Evil" in D&D, and it seems that there's several ways of including it in a campaign.

One way is to have Bad Guys out there whom the heroes must track down and eliminate.

Another is to have entire nations devoted to evil in conflict with the good nations.

There are many variations and combinations, of course, which is why I couldn't make this a poll, but between the two I think I prefer the second.

I like it when the heroes might need to travel to a nation that is primarily evil. It gives an opportunity for the good guys to play the "underworld" "hiding from authorities" bit. They have a specific mission to accomplish, but they can't take on the entire nation single-handed. It's a situation where the paladin can't just go around smiting, but has to keep focussed on long-term anti-evil goals.

What do you all think?

 

[NewJeffCT]

I like it when the heroes might need to travel to a nation that is primarily evil. It gives an opportunity for the good guys to play the "underworld" "hiding from authorities" bit. They have a specific mission to accomplish, but they can't take on the entire nation single-handed. It's a situation where the paladin can't just go around smiting, but has to keep focussed on long-term anti-evil goals.

What do you all think?

Do evil nations really think of themselves as evil? I'm sure many Germans under Hitler thought he was great; many Huns under Atilla and Mongols under Genghis Khan, etc.

However, I think if the evil leader had an extensive network of informants (Hitler's SS, and supposedly Mongol spies were very good as well) and kept most of his or her population in fear through control of information, it is easy to get the populace whipped up into a frenzy - please see the quote in my sig line!

 

[Nifft]

IMHO nations should never "be" evil or good... they should be composed of individuals who are encouraged and/or pre-disposed to certain behaviors, certainly, and there should be different degrees of control and freedom (law vs. chaos), but in any situation it should be possible for the PCs to either be forced to flee the authorities (due to being framed?) or to use the legal system to their advantage (even if it's a feudal system).

-- N

 

[Knoxgamer]

Within the D&D alignment system, sounds like fun. I would prefer to play with a larger villain like that were I in your game, but then again I like cheesey clearly defined good and evil in a campaign. The harder that people try and make the game like the real world, especially with D&D's alignment system, the more they tend to fail in my experience.

In normal D&D where alignment plays such a role in magic, I would expect the "evil" people to know that they're evil. All it would take would be a single cleric running around with Detect Evil who started pointing out "You know what guys? It turns out we're all evil."

As to the real world, I think it's silly to begin with to try to define an action as "evil" without choosing an ethical system with which to judge said action. Is it maximizing good on a global scale? Is it upholding the 10 Commandments? Does it allow for maximum freedom of decision for the population on the whole? Different ethical systems will result in somewhat different definitions of what is good and evil. A Utilitarian might find that a doctor who murdered his sick patients in order to harvest their organs and save more lives than the one she could otherwise is a good person, because they're maximizing good.

 

[MerakSpielman]

There's one nation in my campaign that's under direct, total rule by a theocracy of a Lawful Evil deity (God of Slavery and Oppression). I have full intention of having squads of guards with 1st level clerics roaming the streets, arresting anybody who shows up under Detect Good or Detect Chaos spells (wands will be standard issue). People who are arrested are pressed into slavery with no trial, according to the law of the land.

The party has to go to this country to recover a specific valuable item which the clerics of said LE god stole decades ago. I imagine this will be an interesting adventure, especially for the Paladin.

 

[DMScott]

I've been thinking about the nature of "Evil" in D&D, and it seems that there's several ways of including it in a campaign.

One way is to have Bad Guys out there whom the heroes must track down and eliminate.

Another is to have entire nations devoted to evil in conflict with the good nations.

To me, the real difference is whether evil is "single source" or not. In the first case, usually it isn't; in the second, usually it is (at least locally). By that I mean that if a whole nation's evil, there's probably some single reason for it, while if bad guys are more widely distributed chances are they each have different reasons for being evil.

For literary parallels, the distributed version is what you find in Conan; he travels the world and fights many different types of evil in many different places. The classic single-source version is Tolkien; evil ultimately comes from Morgoth, through his servant Sauron in the land of Mordor.

Both can make good hooks for campaigns. I usually prefer a mixed approach - I have some big nasty evil nation hanging over everyone's heads, but there's also a lot of independently evil folks to bash on.

 

[Zappo]

In normal D&D where alignment plays such a role in magic, I would expect the "evil" people to know that they're evil. All it would take would be a single cleric running around with Detect Evil who started pointing out "You know what guys? It turns out we're all evil."

We-ell, it isn't that easy. People wouldn't trust the cleric. They would think he is lying, or that he is insane. Confirmation by more clerics of the same church would simply lead to the assumption that this church is against the nation (and, since the nation actually is evil, this would probably lead to persecution). Only the cleric themselves can be 100% sure. Anyone else can and will claim that the cleric is lying or mad. I know that if someone told me that I'm evil, I wouldn't think for a moment that he's right, regardless of what method he has used to determine this.

 

[shilsen]

I like it when there people, groups and nations whose goals oppose those of the PCs. And some of them are evil, some good (or neutral/lawful/chaotic). There's nothing like having a group of paladins and a group of blackguards both trying to kill you to really freak out the PCs (and players ).

My approach to nations is the same as Nifft's. A nation contains too many people and opposed viewpoints to be wholly good or evil (or lawful or chaotic, for that matter), though they may have somewhat of a leaning one way or the other.

 

[John Morrow]

I imagine this will be an interesting adventure, especially for the Paladin.

Don't forget those Undetectable Alignment spells, then.

In the Evil parts of my setting, they don't necessarily arrest Good characters on sight, so long as they aren't causing any trouble. They can be useful so long as they stay in line and don't try to foment rebellion against the order of things. They don't simply arrest Chaotics for being Chaotic, either. It's more sadistic to watch them try to follow a byzantine code of laws because they'll just eventually fail, anyway.

I personally suggest simply making the law enforcement cold, efficient, draconian, and unyielding and not have illegal alignments. That doesn't mean that they never scan for Good or Chaotic so they know who the potential troublemakers are (if you want to invoke shades of Nazi Germany, you could always have them mark the Good and Chaotic people with symbols on their shirts). It simply means that they don't pounce and arrest people until those people actually do something illegal, though the stronger aura of a Good paladin or cleric might trigger an instant arrest.

Remember that it's easier for an Evil government to manage a Neutral or Good population than an Evil one, because an Evil population will always be looking for an angle to attack those in power. They don't necessarily want to drive all the Neutral and Good people away, though they might want to corrupt them. I suspect that many Evil governments try to create at least the illusion of Neutrality in their laws so that the Neutral people don't join with Good and go into open revolt. Better to pretend that the law is fair and impartial and that those poor Good and Chaotic people just have trouble obeying the law of the land.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

As to the real world, I think it's silly to begin with to try to define an action as "evil" without choosing an ethical system with which to judge said action. Is it maximizing good on a global scale? Is it upholding the 10 Commandments? Does it allow for maximum freedom of decision for the population on the whole? Different ethical systems will result in somewhat different definitions of what is good and evil. A Utilitarian might find that a doctor who murdered his sick patients in order to harvest their organs and save more lives than the one she could otherwise is a good person, because they're maximizing good.

Actually, no. That's a ridiculous mischaracterization of utilitarianism. Read John S. Mill on the subject. He's particularly good at showing that objections to utilitarianism either misunderstand the system or miss the point entirely.

The basis for the ethical system is that we have, innately, a benevolent desire to see good be done. Utilitarianism claims that the amount of good in the world is best measured by the happiness of the people in it...in part because happiness gives us something to measure, while other ethical systems don't necessarily give us a way to check to see if good is being done. So we want to maximize happiness. This is not a hard and fast rule. Mill points out that all ethical systems are merely codifications of the basic, unfocused desire to see good done. Hence all ethical systems are incomplete or lacking in some way, because this unfocused desire doesn't match up well with the realities, complexities, and contradictions inherent in real life.

The claim is that Utilitarianism does the best job of matching up with our innate benevolence, for a variety of reasons. One of these reasons is that instead of confining ourselves to a set of fixed laws, as in a deontological system, we can alter our approach if we find something that will make more people happier. We can, because we don't live only from moment to moment, but operate in full understanding of history and common sense, prevent things like harvesting the organs of one to save many. This, as anyone can see, will end up being pretty darn bad in the long run. So we can see that happiness will in fact not be maximized by allowing such a thing. Utilitarianism is morality by pragmatism. What will result in the best outcome for all? What would we all agree is probably a good course of action? What do we do if the conditions change? The system provides tools for approximating the benevolent impulse that all good people have, and its supporters claim it does a better job of doing this than competing systems do, since the whole point of the system is to deliberately attempt to accomplish this.
</off topic>

Anyway, in my own campaign, the characters live in a world in which dragons have taken over completely and enslaved most people. The city the adventure began in was run by a red dragon of particular cruelty. The society is pretty much chaotic evil, although the citizens aren't necessarily. The dragon's guard, who carry out his evil will, are selected from people who the dragon knows are compassionate and who will hate having to carry out his evil will. He won't employ anyone who might enjoy cruelty, since that pleasure is reserved for himself alone, and he enjoys seeing his servants perform actions that they hate. This also gives him the opportunity to spy on his servants to find out anyone who either enjoys the work or who might try to subvert his will by secretly showing compassion.