How to Evil Properly?

[3catcircus]

I would argue that there is evil and there is good, and one's failure to know which is which (or societal or historical differences) does not change the nature of good and evil.

But, it does.

Native American cultures in the Eastern portions of the US and Canada would torture captives taken in battle. To them, it wasn't evil. White people killing buffalo just for the trophy and not otherwise using the animal - definitely evil because it was a wasteful slap in the face to the creator deities who provided the animal for people.

Societal and historical differences impact one's views of what constitutes good and evil more than any other factor. There may be similarities across cultures - almost all human cultures consider murder to be evil. But killing those people from that other tribe who aren't our tribe isn't murder for a lot of cultures.

Eating ones dead ancestors or vanquished enemies is sacred in some cultures, others consider cannibalism to be evil. Putting to death slaves too old to work isn't evil in some cultures that consider slavery not to be evil. Other cultures who don't consider slavery to be evil would consider killing their old slaves because they're now an inconvenience to be evil.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I'm not saying that people don't think that some things are evil and some things are good. But that doesn't make them right. For example, practically no one thinks that they, themselves are evil. (My evil characters don't, that's for sure) - but they are.

Certainly, in D&D there is an ultimate definition of which is which - and it doesn't actually matter what mortals think is true or not. Heck, in D&D, the Gods are also Judged. They have alignment too, no matter what they might think of themselves.

Some could argue that this is true in the real world as well, but we don't need to get into that here.

Law in D&D, on the other hand, doesn't refer to the specific legal system of the land you're in. If you're lawful, it just means that you believe in structured codes and you do your best to follow one. It doesn't mean that you never break laws, in particular ones that your personal code might disagree with.

 

[aramis erak]

Societal and historical differences impact one's views of what constitutes good and evil more than any other factor. There may be similarities across cultures - almost all human cultures consider murder to be evil. But killing those people from that other tribe who aren't our tribe isn't murder for a lot of cultures.

The universal evils, things considered wrong in almost every culture, are few, but profound. All of them, historically, originate in a limitation of "people" to one's coreligionists in the same civil/cultural identity...

Murder - intentional and unjustified killing.
Adultery/sodomy - sex acts outside the cultural norm for the local culture
Blasphemy - teaching counter to the local religious majority norm
Theft from a person - taking another "person's" things. This includes their spouses and children
False speaking - telling a lie to a "person"
Apostasy - changing one's faith away from the local majority religion, especially to a foreign one.
Mistreatment of chattels - which usually includes children and slaves, and in many cultures, women as well.
Sloth - being able to work but instead relying upon others to work for you.

that last is interesting, because all the religions I've read which consider it a major sin also require almsgiving to the infirm and insane; either directly or through the church and/or state (which often were in fact the same, and when they weren't the same, were often in cahoots). All I've studied consider it wrong.

When setting building, the question of who is included in "people" is a huge factor. Most real world cultures have categories other than chattels and "real people" - often, only the elites and the citizens were legally protected, while the lesser folk were only protected from each other....

 

[3catcircus]

The universal evils, things considered wrong in almost every culture, are few, but profound. All of them, historically, originate in a limitation of "people" to one's coreligionists in the same civil/cultural identity...

Murder - intentional and unjustified killing.
Adultery/sodomy - sex acts outside the cultural norm for the local culture
Blasphemy - teaching counter to the local religious majority norm
Theft from a person - taking another "person's" things. This includes their spouses and children
False speaking - telling a lie to a "person"
Apostasy - changing one's faith away from the local majority religion, especially to a foreign one.
Mistreatment of chattels - which usually includes children and slaves, and in many cultures, women as well.
Sloth - being able to work but instead relying upon others to work for you.

that last is interesting, because all the religions I've read which consider it a major sin also require almsgiving to the infirm and insane; either directly or through the church and/or state (which often were in fact the same, and when they weren't the same, were often in cahoots). All I've studied consider it wrong.

When setting building, the question of who is included in "people" is a huge factor. Most real world cultures have categories other than chattels and "real people" - often, only the elites and the citizens were legally protected, while the lesser folk were only protected from each other....

Yep - that's the key. Who it is that a particular society considered worthy of being considered people. Almost every society and culture has its origins in tribal thinking borne of surviving as hunter-gatherers. Protect and build your tribe - anything that interferes with that is evil. Anything that promotes your tribe is good. To go with the big things you mentioned:

1. Murder - killing your own tribe = not good because it upsets the harmony and it reduces the chances of the tribe expanding and growing. Killing those of other tribes competing for the same scarce resources = acceptable.
2. Adultery/Sodomy - interferes with the ability of the tribe to procreate.
3. All the rest - focused on anything that would upset the balance of things or interfere with the existing harmony of the tribe.

 

[billd91]

Slavery was, following the Capitalist logic, THE IDEAL (free labor). It only failed when the Abolitionists and slaves refused to be ignored.

But, if you were running a business and didn't have to pay your workers, would you? And if you fed, clothed and housed those unpaid, but, content workers at your expense, should you be categorized as an evil person?

"Evil" is as subjective as a society allows, maybe?

I would argue that's a misread of capitalism. The Abolitionists were, in part, fueled by a capitalist vision of free labor as in free market labor, meaning fundamentally that the workers weren't owned, the capitalists weren't responsible for the laborer's shelter, food, and all around health, the workers could shop around for the best work in a free market, and would have the incentive to work hard for better pay rather than resist and commit sabotage because of the oppression they live under. The Republican Party, when it was formed, was a coalition of anti-slavery forces also generally in favor of an industrial free market rather than the agrarian plantation system.

I would also argue that the progression from slavery being widespread and normal, even expected, in societies to being widely considered immoral indicates that "evil" is subjective and dependent on broader developments in philosophical, legal, political, and economic theories. It's hard to look back at a time when slavery wasn't broadly considered evil (the opinions of the slaves, most likely, excepted) without wondering how they can feel that way. But then, we have the privilege of living at a time when alternatives are viable and favored. There will come a time when people may look back at our own moral structures and wonder the same thing because they may develop substantially different ideals that we cannot predict any more than our ancestors could have predicted ours.

That, however, is different from D&D where there has existed, for a long time, various definitions of good and evil that are, largely, anachronistic for the medieval-style setting - but easy enough to understand for those of us living in the modern world.

 

[noko]

I have trouble with evil campaigns. As a PC, how do you successfully convey "I'm a bad dude" without going in for cartoonish puppy-kicking? Any hints or tips from the evil campaign veterans out there?

I asked one of my players, and she says:
"For Chaotic evil, you can just make all of the choices you wouldn't otherwise make. A woman tells you she lost her wallet? Go and hunt the thief down and take it from them. But don't give that wallet back to her. It's yours now. You reap the benefits. Being evil means you feel free to use other peoples' misfortune to your advantage.

Neutral evil works sort of the same way, except with more leniency toward following along with the good guy. Until, of course, they stop being useful to you. I think neutral evil characters usually get involved in war games, working on the side of the highest bidder (or the side with the most entertaining end-goal.)

I do have a lawful evil character, though I tend to forget that's what his alignment is. Lawful evil is a lot more complex. You have an end-goal. And that goal overrides every other consideration. You would betray your own family to reach said goal, and they wouldn't even know. Most of the time you can't tell a person is lawful evil, and that's what's so scary about them." Thus spake Wisteria.