Thoughts about the nature of evil

[Gothmog]

All the recent hubbub about the BoVD has gotten me to thinking about evil in D&D and other RPGs, and how it is often presented. It seems like most of the time in RPG products, evil is presented as an absolute force, that is often fairly in-your-face, and pretty sanitized.

I don't want to open back up the whole flame war that occurred over Tracey Hickman's beliefs on the BoVD, but I am curious how other ENWorlders present evil in their games. Do you use the comic book code type of evil, which is pretty absolute, and which stays away from subjects that often make people uncomfortable? Or do you use a more gritty style of evil, where morality is depicted in shades of gray, and subjects like violence, sexual themese, etc pop up occasionally? Or perhaps something between these extremes? Also, what often motivates the villains in your game?

This is a subject religious scholars have debated for millenia, and although most of us aren't qualified in that regard, I think it would be interesting to have a dicussion about evil, how it often manifests in games, and how it ties in with human nature. Thoughts?

(Oh, and can we avoid speculation on the BoVD? There are other threads going right now for that. )

 

[thundershot]

While I don't have an "absolute" evil in my campaign yet, I do have villains with brains, rather than poorly thought out plans. Yes, he WILL help the PC's defeat the Greater Evil (tm), and then turn around and kick their asses when the battle is over, or if he's doing poorly, will flee without regret.



Chris

 

[I'm A Banana]

All the above. ^_^

I have alignments, and these alignments are certainly forces themselves.

But just because there is a force of EVIL doesn't mean that everything evil should be eradicated, or that you can nessecarily tell what's evil and what's good.

And just because someone can detect you as "evil" doesn't mean that you're incapable of good, or that it gives them a free excuse to kill you.

Evil, IMC, is ingrained in human nature. It's the taking of pleasure in the harming of others -- you can't destroy an evil orc stronghold and be happy about it. You can't take joy in a victorious battle. Everybody, at all times, is tempted to be evil, and even Lawful Good Paladins are capble of being evil every once in a while. The alignments aren't exclusive. They're just a description for motives.

See, this doesn't mitigate themes like violence, sex, or all those taboo things at all. It doesn't destroy the touchy subjects by saying "it's a maddening force and only villains do it." Everyone is evil, commits evil, does evil...it's part of being alive. Just as even the most debauched villain probably does a few good things.

My villains are motivated by anything anybody else is motivated by. Power. Greed. Success. Life itself. Vengeance. Protection of that which they love. The reason they're villains is because they're opposing the PC's, pretty much. Just because they're the enemy doesn't mean they're evil, nor does it mean that the PC's are nessecarily good simply by virtue of opposing them. It's quite possible to have a Lawful Good villain, who just seems to have the idea that in order to make everyone lawful good (and thus happy), he needs a mind-controlling artifact.

He's Lawful Good. He's pure and upright. But since most PC's very much value freedom of thought (and a lot of normal people do, too), he's in opposition to them. They probably aren't Evil (and may even be lawful themselves), just of a different mind.

I think it's a mistake to link in-game alignment evil with any question of real-world evil. Alignments can describe motives in fantasy, but they don't well describe the complex actions of those of us who live a real life. At most, one can consider Good and Evil determined by some outside force, and then either not told, or disseminated through prophets and the like. No human being, because we are all relative creatures, can truly define a universal Good and a universal Evil, any motive or act that is always one or the other.

Also, human beings *always* believe that *they* are right. Those who oppose them are wrong. As Right came to equal Good and Wrong came to equal Evil, they largely just became the name for Those on the Other Side. I don't think the D&D alignments really apply when You = Good and Those Who Oppose You = Evil.

I think they work well enough when they are defined and solid, absolute, and the PC's generally know (meta-game) what they are. But I avoid defining it in-game because, in real life, the PC's are hardly aware of what is good and what is evil.

 

[willpax]

I suppose that I try to keep it simple. As I've found it difficult to improve on the general maxim "minimize avoidable suffering," I define evil as the purposeful infliction of suffering on another. Where I probably depart from many on the boards is my feeling that such acts are not redeemed by mitigating factors such as good intentions or the targets of such suffering being evil themselves. I think the infliction of suffering hardens you to the act, making you more likely to do it again--making you more evil despite your good intentions.

It will probably come as little surprise that I don't use the standard alignment system, using instead a corruption/madness mechanic cobbled together from parts of Star Wars d20, Wheel of Time d20, and my own personal modifications.

So, to answer your question, I think we all have some shades of gray, although the spectrum is fairly wide. I also think (although my wife disagrees with me on this, and she is smarter than I am and therefore probably right) that most people by this definition are more good than evil. But then again I'm an optimist.

 

[jester47]

In my campaign evil manifests in different ways. Sometimes, like with Ogres that enjoy hurting people, it is blatant. Other times it is circumstantial, and structural, like with an army that needs to build seige engines to defeat the evil overlord but has to cut them from the forest of the elves. And sometimes it is very subtle like with a Drow wizard that is coercing the heroes into working for him. He sets traps but only traps that work because of the heroes actions. Thus he often claims innocence when dealing with the heroes.

Aaron.

 

[Gothmog]

Good point Kamakaze Midget, villians don't have to be evil in alignment- just someone who is strongly opposed to the goals and motivations of the PCs. IMC, one of the longest running villains is a lawful good paladin who is in the same church as the PC paladin- for some reason the two have never gotten along, and what started as a friendly rivalry has escalated to bitter enemies. While he isn't evil or cruel, if the NPC figured out a way to discredit or sully the PC paladin's reputation, he would do so without hesitation. And to be honest, the PC paladin would likely do the same, although he would probably be a little more hesitant. All this came from a theological debate the two had early in the campaign!

 

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Good and Evils as kinds of Empathy

I've always seen the good-evil axis on the alignment "graph" as representing levels of empathy. But with a slight twist.

IMC, "good" is the ability to empathises with others, and a desire to live their joys and alleviate their pains. A "good' person is disturbed by suffering in others (and motivated to alleviate it) to the extent they are good.

Neutral on the good-evil axis represents an absence of empathy. An extremely neutral character is unlikely to have any emotional attachments to other beings at all. More normally, neutrals are capable of a certain level of empathy, but only with those who are close to them (family, lovers, close friends). Most people are neutral or neutral with good tendencies.

Evil is thus not the absence of empathy but a kind of twisted empathy. An evil person feels the pain of others and enjoys it. Thus the classic evils - demons and devils - cause pain and sorrow for its own sake, they feed off it. Less extreme evil usually begins as a kind of neutral selfishness - an attitude of "I will get what I want regardless of who I have to hurt" which slides into "I will make anyone who stands in the way of me getting what I want pay with blood and pain and sorrow."

On this basis, the way to corrupt a paladin would be to make her take pleasure in the destruction and despair of her defeated enemies.

And my favourite corollary of this is the idea of an old party ally wizard of LN alignment who, to avoid death by old age, becomes a lich. He thinks he's too intellectual and rational and detached to ever be tempted into depravity, but now he's a lich he gains this inexplicable, sensual, almost sexual pleasure at watching his enemies scream as they are consumed by the flames of fireball spells... He's the same guy - but now with an incurable addiction to watching the suffering of others. And his old friends (the PCs) now have to put down an treasured old friend...

 

[Nightfall]

Calastia type evil is one I like using. (A lawful and orderly society that also enjoys denigrating "lesser" people to keep everything work properly)

Hollowfaustian evil (necessary evil)

And then there's Titanspawn evil (basically the kind of evil that destroys civilizations but only because they feel bitter about losing and want to wreck EVERYTHING! )

 

[the Jester]

In brief, I'd say I use lots of shades of grey in my game for creatures like humans and elves; that is, an evil human is very rarely without some redeeming features, and a good human may very well be at odds with other good humans due to differing views on things.

Demons and devils and their ilk are much more absolutely evil- they kill and maim for fun, they destroy things for their own pleasure, they feed off of suffering. But even then, there's always the possibility of a "risen demon" or one who got slipped a helm of opposite alignment or something.

 

[Sammael99]

In my campaign, "natural evil" or good, for that matter, do not exist. In other words, if you face a serial killer in combat, your protection vs Evil spell wouldn't work. Why ? Because I decide in my campaign that mortals have the right of choosing their path. Therefore, there is no absolute alignment for them.

Now supernatural evil does exist and can be detected, protected against, etc. Evil artefacts, outsiders, etc. can exist. Furthermore, clerics and divinely aligned mortals are also subject to "absolute alignment" effects even though they may not behave accordingly. In other words, a cleric of the god of war and destruction could be neutral and still be subject to a detect evil / prot from evil because the supernatural force he stands for is evil.

So the alignment of NPCs or PCs really is only an indication of behaviour.

To give you an idea of how I think on these issues, an idea I had for an epic level campaign was a mighty LG hero who decides that the way to "good" for the whole world is to eradicate death. Therefore he starts destroying clerics and temples of the god of death "for the greater good". If not stopped, his madness would have terrible repercussions on the world, as the power of the god of death wanes with the demise of his followers...