Evil is cool

[Celebrim]

For D&D, I think I'm going to have to stick with the "your actions define/prove your alignment". For the simplest reason that the GM can't read the players mind.

He doesn't have to. The player writes it down on the character's sheet.

So IF Celebrim is right and thinking about murder is murder...

That's not exactly what I said though, is it?

In order to keep the system working, it has to be OK for Paladins to kill orcs.

Ok, first, no it doesn't. It doesn't have to be 'ok' for the Paladin to kill orcs. Why does it have to be ok to kill orcs? But then, whether or not it was 'ok' for the Paladin to kill orcs was never in question, was it? I don't think I ever promoted pacificism in the above. I mean would you mind quoting where I said it wasn't ok to kill orcs?

Now, if I understand Celebrim's basic tenet, thinking of an evil act is the same as doing it.

Then you don't understand the basic tenet. You might want to back up and read what I said again, because it certainly wasn't that thinking about evil is evil. It could be, but more is going on here than that. I talked about things like pride, greed, lust, and wrath, for example. I think I also made clear that it wasn't merely 'thinking of an evil act' or 'thinking about an evil act', but 'thinking of performing an evil act' and perhaps the word 'fantasizing' would here be appropriate to show the level of mental involvement that I'm talking about.

The problem I see with that philosophy is the pink elephant problem. Per the story, a king was sold a philosopher's stone and told that it will work, so long as he doesn't think of pink elephants while using it. The king naturally thought of pink elephants, so it never worked.

I'm not sure I see the relevance.

If thinking of murdering someone is an evil act, all I have to do is have Celebrim read about the time he crept into Eric's Grandma's house and smothered her with a pillow while she slept. He just now visualized it, and as an extreme interpretation of what he's saying is now tainted by evil.

Well, I agree that you've just made an extreme interpretation of something. Whether it has much bearing on what I said, I'm not certain, though truth be told I probably wouldn't want to read about murdering Eric's Grandma, and I would be a little unnerved by the fact that someone took the time to write a graphic description of smothering Eric's Grandma with a pillow. I think I would find a real story about murdering any real person to be a bit chilling.

The rest of your post I'll not comment on, since it threatens to derail the thread even further.

 

[Mallus]

Torment - all evil: combat advantage to first attacker if you hit, +2 intimidate.
Tyranny - all evil: -2 saving throws (even if you miss with the attack), +2 intimidate.
Vengeance - all evil: damage to anyone who attacks if you hit, +2 intimidate.

The balance goes to evil, not only better effects on the evil only ones, but the most powerful one you don't even have to hit for!

Of course, the easiest thing to do is simply decouple these mechanical abilities from the worship of evil gods. There's nothing particularly evil about them. They'd work just as well for Good deities, with a minimum of re-fluffing.

For example, the three quoted domains work fine for the Lord Jehovah (who's traditionally depicted as being intimidating, potent in the wahoo department, and capable of some serious vengeance).

Moderator's note: Folks, right above we have an example of including real-world religion in game discussion. Please, don't do this. I know sometimes it makes it harder to make your point, but we ask you to take the extra effort.

 

[Janx]

No, people who hold evil beliefs will probably seem quite 'ordinary' and they'll believe something that rational and reasonable people could believe. They won't mostly be murderers, theives and robbers, which is why I find it funny when someone tries to 'detect evil' to discover the murderer. ...snip some more relevant stuff...

If we keep D&D's assignment of an alignment to people, I suspect that there's different kinds of evil people.

a) You've got violent gang member evil, where the guy rapes, steals, does whatever he wants.

b) You've got the serial killer, seemingly normal guy who quietly preys on society, for his own twisted reason.

c) You've got the radical extremist, who believes his cause is just (and it might be), but he does bad things to achieve them.

d) you've got the ruthless executive, who wears a fine suit, but underneath is willing to do anything for power.

None of these are definitive. I'm just listing out some stereotype examples so we're on the same page.

In none of the 4 types I've identified, do any of them seem like they "worship evil". Type A would be the closest, as they generally portray themselves as "bad guys" because of their thuggish outlaw behavior.

The other types are all trying to avoid detection, so they can maxmize their effect (type C), or just continue to get away with it (Type B or D).

I'm reminded of Discovery channel's show where some psychologist made an Evil scale and applied it to real criminals. Perhaps some of his concepts might apply.

Personally, I have a hard time imagining a cult or city of evil people. At least one that openly declares "we worship evil". That just seems far-fetched. Though it isn't far-fetched for a group of people to congregate that are evil (like a gang being mostly Type A). Or all the managers in a company being Type D, which by the way, tend to CEOs score high on the sociopath test.

I suspect that in D&D, it is easier to justify clearing out the borderlands for settling if the denizens are all actually evil. As opposed to being natives who migrated here before across a land bridge and have not advanced technologically as far as we have and only some of them were evil.

As for the Detect Evil problem, it is two-fold. It and Speak With Dead mess with murder mysteries and betrayal surprises, so the GM is inclined to nerf them anyway. Nextly, assigning an alignment on simplistic terms can be easy. The PCs are always doing good deeds, they're evil. The sucubus is pretending to be a countess, but she really wants my soul, she's evil. So are those orcs. What gets complicated is the NPC who's not been evil most of his life, but now his principles are about to be compromised. Maybe he's Type C or D (or becoming that type, from a more neutral position). Does he register on Detect Evil?

 

[keterys]

Fate - good, evil, unaligned: +1 attack vs. bloodied, +2 insight.
Knowledge - good, evil, unaligned: +1 all defences if you hit, +2 history.
Life - good, evil, unaligned: temp hit points if you hit, +2 heal.
Torment - all evil: combat advantage to first attacker if you hit, +2 intimidate.
Tyranny - all evil: -2 saving throws (even if you miss with the attack), +2 intimidate.
Vengeance - all evil: damage to anyone who attacks if you hit, +2 intimidate.

The balance goes to evil, not only better effects on the evil only ones, but the most powerful one you don't even have to hit for!

So the complaint is more that the gods in Forgotten Realms just don't have the domains you happen to want? Vengeance used to not be associated with an evil god in FR, but in their god consolidation they consolidated him under Bane. Oh well.

Tyranny's -2 to saves isn't useful for most parties, but is very powerful with a party built to take advantage of it. You actually really won't find it that useful in LFR, from my experience. If you're always grouped with an orbizard, then maybe, but frankly I'd not be surprised if Tyranny gets hit with the same nerf bat that hit most save penalties this month (and Divine Power is scheduled for the next update). Basically only dailies have saves on them, only a fraction of those do, and only a fraction of those saves even matter. As you hit epic, this will change somewhat.

Life is more universally useful and has a frankly better skill option. The amount of temp and heal churned out by astral seal is potentially quite gross compared to the damage of many creatures at this level, like solos.

Fate is the next most useful after those two most likely, since landing astral seal in the first place is more critical, its healing is most needed in the later stages of combat, and it's used by pacifists in particular on bloodied enemies.

Torment after that, edging ahead if you have a rogue in the party, though not otherwise.

Vengeance and Knowledge are both nothing special.

 

[Janx]

He doesn't have to. The player writes it down on the character's sheet.

Good point.

However, that's a little complicated too. Alignment on the PC sheet is basically part of the player declaring their character's motivations on how they'll act in the game.

In a computer RPG, the most generic definition of roleplaying is to pick a class and do stuff with the skills of those classes. No acting or behavior guidelines. In later computer sandbox RPGs like Fable and Elder Scrolls, they calculated your alignment by the good deeds and bad deeds you did. To be neutral, you had to balance them out, otherwise it didn't really exist.

In a pen and paper RPG, the general pattern is that the player describe their character before the game begins. Then they play the character that way. Alignment being the most simplest declaration of "I'm a Good guy".

Changing alignment was basically recognizing that the player was not playing the character correctly. Saying you're good, and then killing the entire population of NiceVille, for example. Thus the PC was penalized for alignment change, most likely meaning to discourage it.

Of course, this poorly models real motivations or character change. I think the core intent was to get people to "act" or roleplay, and to stay in character to some extent.

However the spirit of the idea has some merit. If you were playing Cyclops in the movie, you can't act like Wolverine. A berserker with a missing past is not the soldier-boy good boy scout follower of Professor Xavier character. You'd be scolded at or replaced by the director.

The same is true in a tabletop RPG. If you're playing a ranger, you're supposed to like nature and defend it, and yet generally be a good guy. Playing it as a cut-throat oil-tycoon looking to chop down all the trees and dig for texas tea is out of character.

That's what I suspect alignment intended. It probably isn't a perfect tool. I'd rather see a PC have a short document explaining their character and motivation and expect them to play it that way or to shift it in play.

To wind all this back to evil being cool, one pattern I see a lot is "evil turned good". Part of this is the anti-hero. But its basically a hero who rides the edge, or a bad guy who's turned to fighting evil instead of good. Thus you get to use all the powers of evil against evil. Even Drizz't Do'Udren is an example of this. Angel and Spike from the Buffy series. Dexter Morgan from the Showtime show Dexter.

 

[apoptosis]

Well, then your argument is circular.

And moreover, you should feel a sudden jolt of cognitive dissonance when talking with me then, because I'm using 'evil' to describe not only something that isn't a behavior at all, but which is quite clearly 'socially acceptable' and 'normal'. So either I'm insane or you are (or both).

It is not circular as it was not an argument. The first is just proscribing what I identify as evil. limiting evil to a certain parameters (behavior, manmade definitions, social unnaceptability).
The second part was thrown in as this conversation has a habit of jumping back and forth between real-life vs game ideas. The second was what i believed is the genesis of the concept of 'evil'

Oftentimes in D&D, Evil is described as both behavior and as an 'essence' (for lack of a better word). That is why things can be evil or spells or nonsentient objects. Often D&D tends to equate evil as an apriori noun or adjective. This is what I think you are also suggesting (clarify if i am incorrect)

For instance someone has 'evil' thoughts. Then the question goes...why is the thought evil. It cannot hurt someone or anything, it is just a thought. The thought might lead to an 'evil' action. What in of itself makes the thought evil.

There is where i see you argument coming from.

Though given the change in discussion, i probably should never post and run...but I did.

 

[Janx]

Oftentimes in D&D, Evil is described as both behavior and as an 'essence' (for lack of a better word). That is why things can be evil or spells or nonsentient objects. Often D&D tends to equate evil as an apriori noun or adjective. This is what I think you are also suggesting (clarify if i am incorrect)

For instance someone has 'evil' thoughts. Then the question goes...why is the thought evil. It cannot hurt someone or anything, it is just a thought. The thought might lead to an 'evil' action. What in of itself makes the thought evil.

I get what you're saying and I think I agree.

 

[apoptosis]

I get what you're saying and I think I agree.

There are kind of two ideas that were looked at in the thread (this is getting way too Augustinian.

If evil is a state adjective or property that is an 'essence' vs a description (in D&D it seems to be)

Evil either is the presence of something

or

Evil is the absence of something (non-good): in which case neutral does not actually exist (unless averaging is allowed in which case almost everything is neutral)

 

[Celebrim]

For instance someone has 'evil' thoughts. Then the question goes...why is the thought evil. It cannot hurt someone or anything, it is just a thought. The thought might lead to an 'evil' action. What in of itself makes the thought evil.

There is where i see you argument coming from.

In the 'spiritual school' of ethics (I'm sure there is a more learned and appropriate term for this, but I don't know it), the concept that is shared among them isn't that ideas have an independent existance as Platonic forms (though many of course would argue that they do), but rather that for something to be judged good it is not sufficient to say that it does no harm to someone else, but also that it does no harm to the person himself. That is to say, the 'spiritual school' believes that to be good, you must keep your internal emotional and mental life ('spirit') pure and free from things that are destructive and that this may be as important or even more important than simply refraining from doing harm or evil.

For example, the Stoics were materialists and unlikely to believe in evil as a 'spirit' per se, but they reasoned that negative emotions like anger, jealousy, lust and so forth arose from serious errors in reasoning within the thinker and that in turn, they propagated errors in judgment that would of necessity lead to incorrect action. Therefore, the wise sage cultivated correct reasoning which would ultimately lead to calmness, tranquility, and the ability to resist all pain and suffering.

While there are differences, similar beliefs are shared by Buddhism. The Buddhists believe that before an action can be truly classified as good, it most procede from the eight fold path which begins with right understanding, then right thinking, then right intention, then right speach, and finally right action (and then so forth as your actions propagate through the world). Unless you follow the noble eightfold path it is highly unlikely that you would act rightly, and even if your action did incidently appear as a right action, the fact that it proceeded from wrong understanding and wrong intention invalidates it as something 'good' and it would not retain a noble character for long (you would lack rightmindfulness and right concentration).

So the answer to your question 'What makes the thought evil?', is in many cases that it harms the thinker and that harm to the thinker is an evil in and of itself, both because the thinker is then more likely to engage in wrong action proceeding from the thought and because since the thinker is my brother harm to my brother is indirect harm to me in as much as I love my brother and would not wish to see him come to harm.

It is not necessary to imagine that evil thoughts have an independent essense other than their destructiveness, and I'll withhold my own views on whether or not they do as not relevant to the discussion.

In D&D, as you say, evil clearly has independent and separate existance, allowing through some mechanism for an object to be evil. Any cosmology you invent for D&D needs to explain this attribute, and most possible explaination I think tend to suggest that in D&D a thought could be evil even if you don't believe that thoughts being evil is an attribute of the real world.

One of the things I enjoy about fantasy games is playing with possible cosmologies that don't necessarily agree with my view of the real world (D&D's default cosmology fails this in all sorts of ways some obvious and some less obvious), however I sympathize with people who want to align D&D's cosmology exactly with how they believe the real world behaves.

What I find particularly interesting about the latter though is that its often possible to compare a person's assumption about 'the way the world really is' to a hypothetical world view within the default cosmology and apply a label to it. For example, the claim that neither good nor evil really exists, or that they are relative or created things, or that they are really the same thing, implies a 'neutral' worldview with respect to 'good/evil', as those are possible ways that a 'neutral' character could view the world and thereby justify their particular actions.

What I find if more interesting about the D&D cosmology is it can thense become a playground where in we explore questions like, 'What is the result of looking at the world in various ways?' or entertain questions like, 'Given the D&D cosmology, is it possible that within the created world that the believers in X are actually correct?' In my own campaign, I try to take this question beyond the level of just 'Are the Lawful Evil beings right?', and into questions like, 'Given this cosmology, whats the right relationship between mortals and the gods?', or 'Given this cosmology, is 'Order' or 'Good' or 'Evill' really relative or does the cosmology sufficiently justify the existence of the thing?', or 'Given this cosmology, is it just to kill goblin children in cold blood?'

Note the frequent application of 'Given this cosmology...', because one of the most interesting aspects of this mental game is the question of whether some things hold true universally or whether some things are merely artifacts of 'the way this world is' (however you believe that to be).

 

[apoptosis]

It is not necessary to imagine that evil thoughts have an independent essense other than their destructiveness, and I'll withhold my own views on whether or not they do as not relevant to the discussion.

.........What I find if more interesting about the D&D cosmology is it can thense become a playground where in we explore questions like, 'What is the result of looking at the world in various ways?' or entertain questions like, 'Given the D&D cosmology, is it possible that within the created world that the believers in X are actually correct?' In my own campaign, I try to take this question beyond the level of just 'Are the Lawful Evil beings right?', and into questions like, 'Given this cosmology, whats the right relationship between mortals and the gods?', or 'Given this cosmology, is 'Order' or 'Good' or 'Evill' really relative or does the cosmology sufficiently justify the existence of the thing?', or 'Given this cosmology, is it just to kill goblin children in cold blood?'

To the first part. I do agree negative thoughts particularly recurrent ones can be harmful (i am involved in neurochemisty and psychiatry so I know this is true) but actually they can also be good (stress can have good effects as well as deleterious ones) and recurrent positive thoughts can also have good and bad effects. This also begs the question is harm what is 'evil' or is it harm + intent (consciously directed harm). Disasters harm quite a lot of people but few would say that they are evil.

But this is the effect of the thought not the thought itself. Which goes back to the general property argument vs. descriptive vs. causative claim. But you are correct it is beyond the scope of the thread.

To the second I agree...While i do not believe in the state property of evil (am completely in the descriptive camp) the creation of mythos where this is not the case is a big draw to fantasy gaming. It does allow the investigation of ideas. It is why a lot of the 'narrative' type games are a big draw for my goup.