The Problem of Evil [Forked From Ampersand: Wizards & Worlds]

[WalterKovacs]

Yes they are. It is convenient because none of the players I have played with want to waste time dealing with the nature of EVIL in their GAME. Philosophical discussions get in the way of XP and GP

If that was truly the case ... why do they have to kill EVIL creatures anyway? I would think, outside of allignment based penalties imposed by a DM (for acting against their allignment), that you could get just as much XP and GP for killing creatures that didn't happen to be evil.

For some, the idea isn't about philosophy or theology. It's about roleplaying interesting characters and stories. There is a lot of storytelling opportunity that can come out of post-modern thinking and questioning moral certainty. Removing a false ceiling and having the world there in be a lot more complex than just "us against them."

That isn't saying that a simple game where allignment is crystal clear, to the point that "detect allignment" isn't even necessary can't be fun. However, some players/DMs might like giving their characters a bit of a challenge in terms of figuring out what the "right thing" is.

Even stories with capital E Evil, like Lord of the Rings, also has some small e evil characters as well. People that can be redeemed, or people on the side of good that can be tempted to the Dark Side.

Heck, the whole idea of things like Lawful Good is that there isn't just a single allignment, and the character has to struggle with possibly conflicting allegiances.

Evil is often about taking the easy way out in order to get power and wealth. Ignoring any moral questions in the search of XP and GP ... sounds a bit like that.

 

[Rechan]

I'm offering the counter-point to Scott's thoughts about evil and the perspectives they derive from.

Fair point. I was just checking. I got the impression that you didn't like debating over the philosophy of evil, so I was curious why you wanted to.

Rechan, my guess is that you try to create or play in world that is dynamic like real life. In the real world, motives can be assigned to any culture and questioned by another. Evil is GENERALLY a objective term applied only to the truly evil like demons from the Abyss. Would this be a correct assesment?

Yes.

Generally, of course. Like I said, certain monsters are just Evil.

Partly because I like my players actions to have consequences in the world. If the PCs wipe out a large group of humanoids in this area here, and those humanoids had a purpose, well the PCs have now created a power vacuum in the area, and that purpose is now getting unfulfilled, and might result in something bad down the road.

The other part of that is because it's specific to this campaign; it's partly political, and the PCs are movers and shakers; if I don't give them moral questions, they might easily turn into despots. However, we were playing in a "The whole world is saturated with evil, everywhere is desperate times, and we need some Four Color heroes (like say, this campaign world, or the Scarred Lands), then I would want Capital G Heroes whose goal is to drive Evil out and make visible difference in the world. There would be less moral questioning and more black and white, to suit the campagn. But even then, there would be some changes for redemption, and some changes for temptation.

Jasperak, my guess is that you try to create or play in a world where the PCs are right, and the motivation for playing the game is to kill things and take their stuff. If they're in your way, or attacking you, the heroes are justified in killing them because they're enemies. Your priority is in kicking butt and taking names. Is that a correct accessment?

 

[Jasperak]

Yes.

Generally, of course. Like I said, certain monsters are just Evil.

Partly because I like my players actions to have consequences in the world. If the PCs wipe out a large group of humanoids in this area here, and those humanoids had a purpose, well the PCs have now created a power vacuum in the area, and that purpose is now getting unfulfilled, and might result in something bad down the road.

The other part of that is because it's specific to this campaign; it's partly political, and the PCs are movers and shakers. If, for instance, we were playing in a "The whole world is saturated with evil, everywhere is desperate times, and we need some Four Color heroes (like say, this campaign world, or the Scarred Lands), then I would want Capital G Heroes whose goal is to drive Evil out and improve the world. There would be less moral questioning and more black and white, to suit the campagn.

Jasperak, my guess is that you try to create or play in a world where the PCs are right, and the motivation for playing the game is to kill things and take their stuff. If they're in your way, or attacking you, the heroes are justified in killing them because they're enemies. Your priority is in kicking butt and taking names. Is that a correct accessment?

Yes. Generally.

My definition of evil in D&D is related to the characters and their goals, although there is a constant EVIL from the likes of the Abyss and the Far Realms and Orcs.

The nature of evil in any given campaign is determined by the characters and that which stands in the ways of their goals, not by a preset "code" by the DM, in my opinion.

Shoot, read Rob E. Howard's Conan works. Is Conan evil?

 

[Scott_Rouse]

I understand that most of the monsters in D&D are monsters in the true sense, inherently evil for the sake of being evil (an orc gets off on killing the village).

But if you take the idea of "evil is as evil does" away, blur the lines a bit, I think it can be an interesting way to turn the tables in your campaign. What if orcs do what they do because they are the "indians"? The indigenous race that has been getting the screw job by the "others" (to use a Lost-ism) for the past few millennium? Killing a village is not done out of evil a but as a matter of survival. Suddenly your band of human "hereos" stops looking so heroic and starts looking like group genocidal maniacs.

As for the shark, yes in 2009 we can watch Discovery and know that a great white eats a surfer beacuse the surfer on a board looks like a seal from below. But as little as 100 years ago I assure you the average human probably consider the shark evil, a killer that served no good purpose on earth. When I was a kid, I had a neighbor who killed any snake he saw, even harmless garter snakes. This guy was smart, went to the same school I did, but unlike me believed snakes were "of the devil" and needed to be eraticated. Ignorance is one explaination for a perspective on "evil". Your highly evolved predator is another man's monster.

 

[xechnao]

D&D is a world of magic. It has multiple planes of existence and I think the alignments reflect just how life connects to these planes: so good or evil is a matter of planeography.
The planes most humans or human moral rhetoric favor are called good. The more one expands the style of a plane on the material world the more representative he is of its alignment.

If you do not look it this way but try a more realistic approach then you should go away from Tolkien fantasy which is absurd from a realistic point of view. The various races would simply compete against each other and should only be a matter of time the falling of all but one.

 

[Jasperak]

/snip

For 400 years (since the time of Shakepeare) we have dealt with dramatic examples of the nature of evil. If I want complexity in moral judgments i will read Hamlet. D&D isn't Hamlet. No DM I have played with comes close to Shakespeare (I willingly admit neither do I).

I don't want substantiative philosophy and psychology in my GAME. While role-playing can be equated with dealing with moral certainty and consequences, I play a GAME to kick butt and take names. Alignment has been for 20+ years; it is all about player and character motivations.

Though I will step back and acknowledge that others do want those kind of questions in their games. I just realize that that type of game would be unsatisfactory to me, unless run by someone with the ability of Billy.

 

[Admiral Caine]

I understand that most of the monsters in D&D are monsters in the true sense, inherently evil for the sake of being evil (an orc gets off on killing the village).

But if you take the idea of "evil is as evil does" away, blur the lines a bit, I think it can be an interesting way to turn the tables in your campaign. What if orcs do what they do because they are the "indians"? The indigenous race that has been getting the screw job by the "others" (to use a Lost-ism) for the past few millennium? Killing a village is not done out of evil a but as a matter of survival. Suddenly your band of human "hereos" stops looking so heroic and starts looking like group genocidal maniacs.

As for the shark, yes in 2009 we can watch Discovery and know that a great white eats a surfer beacuse the surfer on a board looks like a seal from below. But as little as 100 years ago I assure you the average human probably consider the shark evil, a killer that served no good purpose on earth. When I was a kid, I had a neighbor who killed any snake he saw, even harmless garter snakes. This guy was smart, went to the same school I did, but unlike me believed snakes were "of the devil" and needed to be eraticated. Ignorance is one explaination for a perspective on "evil". Your highly evolved predator is another man's monster.

I think this a great post, so please don't think that I'm quarreling with you..

But you're not really accounting for the presence of supernatural evil, which is prevelent in D&D.

A predatory animal like a shark is one thing. So is a race with its own cultural perspective (your example of the orcs)..

But the D&D world is filled with evil that exists for its own sake. I should know, I just thumbed through a copy of Open Grave. And before someone points out that even undead can potentially have their own perspective that is not evil for them.. there are still demons and devils.

Gramted much of this discussion is geared towards playing characters who might be considered evil based on perspective only..

..the fact that the game has entities who are arguably evil "for its own sake" makes that an obstacle. Or at least a challenge.

Why? Because the lines get blurred very easily.. on what is perspective and what evil for gratification.

Now World of Warcraft does it pretty effectively (Horde versus true evil), but a MMORPG is also very tightly scripted and doesn't allow the personal freedom for characters that a true RPG affords.

 

[Jasperak]

I understand that most of the monsters in D&D are monsters in the true sense, inherently evil for the sake of being evil (an orc gets off on killing the village).

But if you take the idea of "evil is as evil does" away, blur the lines a bit, I think it can be an interesting way to turn the tables in your campaign. What if orcs do what they do because they are the "indians"? The indigenous race that has been getting the screw job by the "others" (to use a Lost-ism) for the past few millennium? Killing a village is not done out of evil a but as a matter of survival. Suddenly your band of human "hereos" stops looking so heroic and starts looking like group genocidal maniacs.

.snip

I have to say I am glad that you post here. Thank You.

Your vision of the game is not the game I want to play. I want to be the White side, always! I am the operations manager for a multi-million dollar business in central Virginia. I have enough to worry about. Dicking around with some scrub in the RPGA that feels I am not "Lawful Good" enough sucks. I play to have fun, not deal with some 20-year old social-outcast that thinks he knows what the world is about. Orcs are EVIL. Philosophical discussions do not have place at the GAME table.

I hate the RPGA/

 

[Scott_Rouse]

I think this a great post, so please don't think that I'm quarreling with you..

But you're not really accounting for the presence of supernatural evil, which is prevelent in D&D.

A predatory animal like a shark is one thing. So is a race with its own cultural perspective (your example of the orcs)..

But the D&D world is filled with evil that exists for its own sake. I should know, I just thumbed through a copy of Open Grave. And before someone points out that even undead can potentially have their own perspective that is not evil for them.. there are still demons and devils.

Gramted much of this discussion is geared towards playing characters who might be considered evil based on perspective only..

..the fact that the game has entities who are arguably evil "for its own sake" makes that an obstacle. Or at least a challenge.

Why? Because the lines get blurred very easily.. on what is perspective and what evil for gratification.

Now World of Warcraft does it pretty effectively (Horde versus true evil), but a MMORPG is also very tightly scripted and doesn't allow the personal freedom for characters that a true RPG affords.

Yes! Supernatural evil is great and could fit right in with the "matter of perspective" notion I posted. It does not have to be black and white. I love the idea that the supernatural evil is pulling the strings, possibly from another plane, manipulating the various forces on the material plane. How would the band of heroes feel after learning that the last 4 years of campaigning were done for the bidding of Orcus himself? His plot to wage war on everyone pitting one race against another.

I am playing Scales of War right now. Obviously, as a player I don't know where the story is going but my sense is that our group has stepped into something that is way bigger than our plucky band of heroes can handle. It makes me ponder "who is behind the scenes on this deal?" What if you also added to that doubt "are we even on the right side of the conflict?"

 

[Shemeska]

Yes! Supernatural evil is great and could fit right in with the "matter of perspective" notion I posted. It does not have to be black and white.

Please tell this to your design team then?