Thoughts about the nature of evil

[Knight_Errant]

Re: Evil is as evil does

If good and evil aren't black and white, I don't get that satisfaction. That comes about for me because, in the real world, villians always have reasons for what they do, and we can almost always sympathize with them, even while we disagree with their choices. I don't want a carbon copy of that in my RPGs. Once you introduce that element into an RPG, it's no longer fantasy, it's a model of reality, and that isn't exciting to me.

I could not agree more.

I think this is a core theme in fantasy settings. If I can understand and sympathize with evil, it is no longer evil. That which is intended to be vile and repugnant becomes familiar and mundane.

The entire good vs. evil argument can be (and frequently is) broken down by example and circumstance used to justify the acts that were committed. In other words, every question of morality is weighed and measured by degree. Every action becomes relative to the circumstances in which it occurred.

When this happens, good and evil become subjective (being based soley on the perspective from which one is observing the act). This in turn, makes good and evil irrelevant, because those who consider themselves "good" will declare acts committed by those they deem "evil" as such, with no regard for how the acts they committ will be viewed by these "evil" people in return.

IMO, this has no place in a fantasy setting. There should be clear cut versions of good and evil for players to gauge their actions by. Without absolute virtues and vices a true fantasy setting cannot exist. When I play an RPG I dont want to understand why the villain does what he does, I leave that to criminologists and behavioral scientists.

I realize that this view is in the minority and I am in no way trying to convince anyone that I am right and they are wrong. I am simply stating that if you choose to play a game where good and evil are subjective, one could argue that it is more reality based than fantasy, and therefore not something I find interesting.

 

[BMF]

Well, first of all I see game designing to be like cooking a stew. The first thing you need to do is decide what flavors you want. If I decide I want a stark good/evil contrast with bad guys dressed in black and out to rule the world, then that's what I add to the mix. However, sometimes, I am more in the mood for something a little more realistic. So I go with a different, more gray, style. I use "opponent's" and NPCs; "antagonists" rather than "villains."

 

[Larry Fitz]

In a world where there are powerful entities that epitomize various alignments, (the gods) then evil and good indeed become absolutes. Even if the characters don't see the distinctions, as DM you must have a definitive answer because in the game the players can commune with their gods and GET that definitive answer. Often in a "Yes" or "No" format.

My pet peeve along these lines is the school of thought thatn evil and good are teams, essentially the same but with different uniforms. I try to avoid monolthic evil and also monolithic good. One of the better villains I had was a powerful Wizard (Specialist Abjurer) who was LG and decide that he would enforce order and goodness on the island he dwelled on, and he he enlisted the aid of a group of Paladins that was headquartered on the island as well. Fighting him did not make the PC's evil, (they were primarily CG) and becoming a totalitarian authority did not make him evil. But the conflicted existed and made for good gaming, especially after both sides realized there could not be a peaceful resolution. The Wizard began by attempting to eradicate and Evil power structures on the island (which endeavor the PC's aided him in), then moved on to any purely chatic powerful influences (which made the PC's wary and brought the Wizard into conflict with an order of druids and some of its Good allies). Then some of the PC's themselves were targetd and things really took off. te point is that Evil and good can be portrayed realistically and in an entertaining fashion without becoming just words.

 

[Bryan Vining]

Hear, hear, Larry!

Yes, just because good and evil are clearly defined as such does not mean that conflict cannot and should not exist between good and good. I think it is sometimes the supposition that two good people (or nations) cannot be fighting one another if they're both good that turns some people off from "absolute" good and evil. Nothing could be farther from the truth. IMC, it takes a very poweful evil force to unite all the good peoples of the world and get them to stop bickering and sometimes fighting amongst themselves. As it so happens, those are, to me, the most interesting stories, so it is usually the case that most of the people of "good" are allied with one another in my campaigns, but that usually happens over time. At the beginning of my campaigns, things will be as usual, with neighboring nations and people arguing over borders and resources, amongst other things.

 

[Tonguez]

I need to do this rant again

The Detect Evil spell DOES NOT detect alignment

what it detects is

from SRD
Evil creatures
Undead creatures
Evil elementals
Evil magic items or spells
Evil outsiders
Cleric of an evil deities

The only creatures in the MM with an Evil subtype are

Monster List
Barghest, Greater Barghest
Devils
Genie, Efreeti
Half-Fiend/Half-Medusa
Hell Hound
Howler Large
Night Hag
Nightmare
Rakshasa
Shadow Mastiff
Vargouille
Xill Medium
Yeth Hound

thus a Paladin cannot detect whether Bugbears or Orcs or Johnny the Beggar are Evil unless Johnny is a Half-fiend or Night Hag or some such or possibly a Cleric of Badmojo

The idea that the spell detects alignment is wrong and no doubt a hang over from earlier editions #e however makes it quite clear that Alignment can NOT be detected!

 

[Sammael99]

The idea that the spell detects alignment is wrong and no doubt a hang over from earlier editions #e however makes it quite clear that Alignment can NOT be detected!

WOW ! I didn't know that !

Goes to show you need to read those rules extra special careful !

So I'm not actually houseruling it my campaign, I'm just applying it as it's meant to. Ain't that great !!!

Thanks for the pointer Tonguez

 

[Celebrim]

I agree.

IMC, although nuetrality is the overall alignment of humans (and to a lesser extent each of the seven 'free peoples'), every region has a trend toward a particular alignment based on thier cultural values. The effects of this trend are generally not extreme, say maybe 10%-20% of the population has that alignment and maybe an equal ammount have a similar alignments (one step removed), but since aligned people tend to be more vocal and motivated than non-aligned ones, the aligned minorities tend to have influence over the political climate of the region that is disporportionate to thier size. But it is hardly anything like absolute on an individual level or on the level of societies as a whole. One nation, say Gulthion, may be an 'evil' nation - but we are talking about a minority of people who are evil and even they are not evil all the time. And because we have two axis moral system, not every good nation is closely allied with every other good nation.

Gulthion (which tends toward chaotic evil) is in many ways more closely allied in philosophy with Harlond (which tends toward chaotic good) than Harlond is with their mutual neighbor Hishen (which tends toward lawful good, at least in the past few years), which is in turn tradiationally more closely allied with Tethis (which tends toward lawful evil). Alliances between the four could conceivably switch back and forth depending on the interests of the state and the overall philosophical or actual reasons for the conflict. Harlond and Hishen currently have an uneasy alliance, not because the ethnic Har of Harlond and the ethic Gouths of Hishen get along (because they don't), but because Tethis is allied with Okmar in a sea war with Hishen southern ally and close philosophical match Minoor over control of the shipping along the Sword Coast. The fact that the Emporer of Tethis is a brutal despot and the King of Hishen is a noble even heroic man hardly comes into the equation. And even so, the King of Hishen's war with his peoples historic enemies in Gulthion (which controls Harlonds access to the spice roads to the west), threats the alliance with Hishen. And the only reason it doesn't crumble doesn't have to do with the blatant evil of Gultion, but with the fact that the Har have never gotten along with the ethnic Timesi that make up the ruling class of Gulthion all that well anyway (they have a three thousand year old grudge).

But just because my campaign world (and the campaigns that I've played in) is filled with all sorts of greyness and grit doesn't mean that I don't consider good and evil real absolute and doesn't mean that I'm not interested in the philosophical issues related to good and evil, nor does it mean that there aren't some NPC's for which the alignment question is pretty clear cut.

One little note on the Paladin issue. While it has never been explicitly stated, it is always been clear to me that Paladin's are intended to be 'more good than lawful', and part of what makes them interesting is the fact that there lawfulness can interfere with there goodness (and sometimes vica versa). Why do I say 'more good than lawful'? Because Paladin's don't smite chaos, nor do they detect chaos, nor do they turn chaotic beings (say fey). Their opposition to chaos is strong, but not nearly so strong as there opposition to evil. Paladins are in many ways reflections of the fact that it is difficult for humans to talk about, think about, and be good without codifying it in some manner eventually - with the resulting lose in real goodness.

 

[Orclicker]

Read the first 5 chapters of Kenzer's Villain Design handbook, which delves into this topic in great detail.

 

[alsih2o]

......

orclicker....lol, hahahahahahahaha, oh, man, i am dying, orclicker, what a great name....

 

[I'm A Banana]

I would say that, also, just because alignments may be absolute, that doesn't mean that the *characters* know what their alignment is.

Take the Albin. These guys are mad-skilled empaths without barriers...they automatically feel the feelings of those around them, and are affected by it. They come accross a wounded, pained individual, and they feel that pain just as strongly.

Now, add to that that they're also superb healers. You've got a people who wander around healing the wounds of others without asking for payment or recompese. They seem to be purely altruistic.

In reality, they're eternally suffering, and only healing you to make themselves stop hurting. They're selfish and greedy, and want to be the best-feeling around. Heck, many theorize that if they make everyone else happy, their power from feeding on the positive emotions will be so great that they can claim rulership over all, break the empathy, and make these ungrateful pukes serve *them.*

The Albin are steadily neutral, verging on evil. But, since they go around healing everyone, people see them as good and altruistic.

I love shades of gray.