playing "evil"

[xLegionx]

Also with some posts I'm reading about being "evil" people are apparently having a problem understanding. Let's look at dnd's version of evil: Lawful evil, Neutral evil, and Chaotic evil.

 

Lawful evil characters are characters whom obviously obey the law and use the law for their own personal gain. These villains can uniquely mask their "evil" side by collectively proving to everyone that they are lawful because they obey the law and have their own personal code of conduct. They wouldn't "murder" anybody but would rather prefer to have some lesser evil man or woman do the dirty work in their place so that they would be breaking the law and they wouldn't.

Let's give an example: A group of adventurers are hired by the king to hunt down a very large and organized group of bandits compromised of all different forms of humanoids such as gnolls, orcs, and evil humans. When the adventurers drive out the bandits they discover information that connects to someone within the own king's court. The king of course doesn't believe them because the accused individual has always been a very well-respected individual. When the lawful evil guy discovers this he hires some individuals to put false information on the adventurers, guaranteeing their execution. After they are taken care of the lawful evil villain proceeds with his vile plan and has the king assassinated and becomes king himself.

So you see lawful evil villains are people who are much like "behind the curtain" villains until some piece of evidence is discovered to be used against them. Also they tend to prove themselves rude and distant towards people they don't know in order to avoid contact with fools who may prove troublesome.

 

Neutral evil characters are evil people whom will do evil means in order to achieve what they want but without any unnecessary ties to that goal. These villains will do what seems "logical" to achieve this goal but they play it smart and ruthless. These villians don't have their own code of conduct but rather their "code" is a really big and pretty castle to live in or maybe just having alot of gold on their side for their own personal benefit making these kind of people very susceptible to bribes and betrayal of the ones they love just so they can live in delcious luxury. They will murder and do unlawful things so long as their is some personal gain from it.

Let's give an example: One particular thief amongst the thieves guild is required to "commit" to the organization after he gains his membership. He does not care about his fellow thieves or the organization but rather wants what he wants and that is that nice pretty mansion that he always dreamed of living in ever since he was a child which infact is still for sale. Proving to be a reliable thief for years to come he had gathered much gold but nowhere near enough to what he requires so he resorts to more quicker methods. Being contacted by the city guard captain he hires the thief to feed him intel on the location of the thieves guild in exchange for a large sum of gold. When he was going to receive his pay he himself was got cuffed by the city guard. Escaping the prison with a lucky lockpick he proceeds to assassinate the city guard captain and gain his keys. Now having access to the rich city's treasury he steals the gold and runs off to buy his dream house.

This thief showed he does not care but rather uses his surrounding allies as useful tools to achieve his own ends. When a greater deal than his current "allies" came up he took the bribe but ended up getting betrayed. He luckily managed to kill the betrayer for the sake of revenge and make off with a larger reward. Again this is the whole point of being neutral evil where you stand between the line of lawful and chaotic. Whichever side drives you at that very moment is the side you shall follow.

 

Now Chaotic evils are true worshippers of they're own desires or they're own misguided motivations. They will kill when they feel the desire too and they don't give a damn who gets in the way. They murder simply for the pleasure of doing so or for any other variety of reasons. They care not about the law and usually desire destruction or watching the world burn. They can also have the same motivations as the neutral evil thief listed above but could have went through more unlawful means of achieving his/her goal.

Lets give an example: A bandit leader whom leads one of the largest group of bandits has his followers commit to him through fear and intimidation. He makes an example of fools who disappoint him simply by killing them. One day, he gets word from one of his agents that a merchant in a rich caravan full of treasures is going to be leaving town in just a couple of hours. Having raided the merchant caravan and easily dispatching of the guards he also discovers the merchant had his family with him along with his 6 beautiful daughters. He ordered to take the daughters as pleasure slaves for his men and killed all their husbands and the merchant.

See through this action they gain everything right in every way they could imagine from this raid but through such immoral and vile means. The bandit leader easily gave in to his own desires and most likely will have the law on his back because of the savagery of the merchant raid he left behind. This can prove to be unwise in the end for him such as making more enemies in the end just because he can't seem to control his own impulses.

 

I hope this gives a larger view on what being evil truly means because in my opinion these alignments represent very real attitudes that are very real attitudes! The reason people don't believe in this is because these alignments do not entirely fit in our present society and so therefore are often rare but it doesn't mean it isn't there. We have murderous gangsters, terrorists, robbers (who can be murderers as well depending on their motivations). These are very real evil people whom could have all the motivations listed above. Hope this helps to clear up the definition of evil! Thank you!

[Michael_Galt]

Yeah, I think that when they say, "there isn't good and evil", they are just copping out. The reality is, typically you only get "good" and "neutral" options. The "anti-hero" option is really, "I'll do good things, but be 'unconventional' and have an attitude while I do it." I want to not just be defaulted into having no choice but to fight/subvert all the "evil"/"enemy" groups.

<snip>

 

I don't think thats what they are saying at all, they are just saying that there is no alignment system, there will be (probably) options you and I will consider evil, but you have no alignment to justify this with. That said, they do have a reputation system, which is probably more realistic. People react to who they think you are, not if you are evil inside.

 

I'm all about reputation systems, and agree that a fair number of people fall into the category you describe (of not wanting an alignment system). But if you fail to provide ruthless/greedy/violent/power thirsty options, you are essentially making it just good or neutral. I want there to clearly be options that make people think, "That isn't neutral at all!"

 

There is no good or evil because they are man-made concepts. There are motivations, no-one will do what they consider to be evil, for evils sake alone. (not in real life anyway)

When people do things we consider to be bad, or evil, it's often for motivations that while we disagree with those, we can understand.

 

Very much disagree with this. By nature, the logic is broken. Any abstract concept is "man-made". By your logic, any abstract concept is "invalid". The ENTIRE reason for abstract thought, and categorization of things into different areas ("good", "neutral", "evil/bad") is to "make sense of the world" and to "communicate ideas". So yes, it's already been stated that to some extent, those things are "subjective" to your culture and society, as well as personal beliefs. But, by nature, that means they DO exist, since all cultures and people have these beliefs.

 

As to people not doing things that are "evil", for evil's sake? That is patently false. There are plenty of people that would and do. Serial rapists aren't trying to bring any good into the world. They don't rape people because someone will kill or torture them for not doing so, they do it because they enjoy it. They enjoy being in control and subjugating someone. Sadists don't excessively harm people without cause because they are trying to prevent something bad from happening, or because they are trying to "help" that person- they do it because it makes them happy to see someone suffer. People that knowingly sell products that don't help people, but actually harm them, might be motivated by money, but they likely also enjoy the fact they are propagating something negative in the world. There are people that LOVE to make other people FEEL miserable, and that is the pursuit in itself. There is no net positive out of it. There are PLENTY of people that like violence without a purpose, besides to exercise their power over others. Is that part of the purpose (to spread intimidation)? Yes, but that is not necessarily the only or primary reason- it might just be icing on the cake.

 

I so like the occasional evil play through, but not the murder everyone I see evil, more like the neutral evil, politician, CEO of a major corporation type of evil.

 

Same.

 

I don't understand the "if you don't let us be the bad guy, you are forcing us to be good" argument about RPGs. Playing a homicidal maniac to me just means that you are trying to find cracks in the game that you can complain about.

 

It seems pretty self explanatory, in your own words, "If you don't let us be the bad guy, you are forcing us to be good." If there aren't options besides "fighting evil", rather than joining it, or taking charge of it, or creating a different threat, you ARE being forced to be "good".

 

Or he could mug you because he wants to buy some drugs and hookers, and fix the clutch on his car. Perhaps he wants to strengthen his position in the "mafia", and they accept money as part of that process. Maybe he just doesn't like that you have fancy stuff, and decides to leave you in the hospital "just because" and really doesn't even need to sell or keep the stuff he took from you. There can also just be evil.

 

Ofcourse. However the above is an example of hamfisted, ignorant and selfish evil. Its easy to place in a "black and white" context. It requires no real reflection or thought to condemn it. The above is how most percieve "evil" and it is terribly simple. Its also rarely the evil that is the most successfull. The more successfull evil we see in our world is the one where evil camouflages as good. For instance if I were to play an "intelligent evil" Lawfull Evil character, my outward appearence would be close to, if not identical to, Lawfull good. Its "Palpatine" before he becomes "the Emperor".

 

 

And even if the above were true (IE strengthening his position) some organisations you dont leave unless you are dead. Some organisations you either live up to your reputation or die horribly. Does it make it better? No... perhaps not. But if you have the choise between seeing your wife and children killed and killing someone else, most opt for what is behind door number one.

 

Just as your example was an easily constructed example of "grey". My point is that each is equally valid. I'm not arguing for alignments, I'm arguing for options. I don't care what the justification is for being able to do "bad" things, I want the option to do them. If you want to do bad things and say, "Well, my character had his entire family killed and was kidnapped by bandits. Those bandits are holding his sister as blackmail to ensure that he does what they want. THAT'S why I need to kill this "chief nun of the abbott" that is doing nothing wrong, and is actually helping people. I don't WANT to, but I love my sister and promised I wouldn't let any harm come to her. Blood first." Great. My character will say this, "Yeah, I disliked the fact that she was sanctimonious. People need to turn to my god if they want help, so I can't let her live." Or, "She was known to have a lot of money, which is why she was able to do all the charity work she did- fortunately, now that money is mine." Or, "Heh- I hated those people she was helping. Let's see how well they do without her around now..." The act was the same, the motivations were not.

 

As to the "most successful evil we see", I don't think that is the point. In nice, shiny America, middle-class land, we don't see a whole lot of egregious evil. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, or hasn't happened in the past, or couldn't still happen. It just means it's less common now. Here are two good examples of "modern" evil, though there is no shortage of other examples that could be provided. These two cover quite a few bases (brutality, violence, enslavement, sexual predation, etc). http://www.huffingto..._n_1826236.html, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Kony.

Edited October 18, 2012 by Michael_Galt

[JFSOCC]

 

Yeah, I think that when they say, "there isn't good and evil", they are just copping out. The reality is, typically you only get "good" and "neutral" options. The "anti-hero" option is really, "I'll do good things, but be 'unconventional' and have an attitude while I do it." I want to not just be defaulted into having no choice but to fight/subvert all the "evil"/"enemy" groups.

<snip>

 

I don't think thats what they are saying at all, they are just saying that there is no alignment system, there will be (probably) options you and I will consider evil, but you have no alignment to justify this with. That said, they do have a reputation system, which is probably more realistic. People react to who they think you are, not if you are evil inside.

 

I'm all about reputation systems, and agree that a fair number of people fall into the category you describe (of not wanting an alignment system). But if you fail to provide ruthless/greedy/violent/power thirsty options, you are essentially making it just good or neutral. I want there to clearly be options that make people think, "That isn't neutral at all!"

 

There is no good or evil because they are man-made concepts. There are motivations, no-one will do what they consider to be evil, for evils sake alone. (not in real life anyway)

When people do things we consider to be bad, or evil, it's often for motivations that while we disagree with those, we can understand.

 

Very much disagree with this. By nature, the logic is broken. Any abstract concept is "man-made". By your logic, any abstract concept is "invalid". The ENTIRE reason for abstract thought, and categorization of things into different areas ("good", "neutral", "evil/bad") is to "make sense of the world" and to "communicate ideas". So yes, it's already been stated that to some extent, those things are "subjective" to your culture and society, as well as personal beliefs. But, by nature, that means they DO exist, since all cultures and people have these beliefs.

 

As to people not doing things that are "evil", for evil's sake? That is patently false. There are plenty of people that would and do. Serial rapists aren't trying to bring any good into the world. They don't rape people because someone will kill or torture them for not doing so, they do it because they enjoy it. They enjoy being in control and subjugating someone. Sadists don't excessively harm people without cause because they are trying to prevent something bad from happening, or because they are trying to "help" that person- they do it because it makes them happy to see someone suffer. People that knowingly sell products that don't help people, but actually harm them, might be motivated by money, but they likely also enjoy the fact they are propagating something negative in the world. There are people that LOVE to make other people FEEL miserable, and that is the pursuit in itself. There is no net positive out of it. There are PLENTY of people that like violence without a purpose, besides to exercise their power over others. Is that part of the purpose (to spread intimidation)? Yes, but that is not necessarily the only or primary reason- it might just be icing on the cake.

 

I so like the occasional evil play through, but not the murder everyone I see evil, more like the neutral evil, politician, CEO of a major corporation type of evil.

 

Same.

 

I don't understand the "if you don't let us be the bad guy, you are forcing us to be good" argument about RPGs. Playing a homicidal maniac to me just means that you are trying to find cracks in the game that you can complain about.

 

It seems pretty self explanatory, in your own words, "If you don't let us be the bad guy, you are forcing us to be good." If there aren't options besides "fighting evil", rather than joining it, or taking charge of it, or creating a different threat, you ARE being forced to be "good".

 

Or he could mug you because he wants to buy some drugs and hookers, and fix the clutch on his car. Perhaps he wants to strengthen his position in the "mafia", and they accept money as part of that process. Maybe he just doesn't like that you have fancy stuff, and decides to leave you in the hospital "just because" and really doesn't even need to sell or keep the stuff he took from you. There can also just be evil.

 

Ofcourse. However the above is an example of hamfisted, ignorant and selfish evil. Its easy to place in a "black and white" context. It requires no real reflection or thought to condemn it. The above is how most percieve "evil" and it is terribly simple. Its also rarely the evil that is the most successfull. The more successfull evil we see in our world is the one where evil camouflages as good. For instance if I were to play an "intelligent evil" Lawfull Evil character, my outward appearence would be close to, if not identical to, Lawfull good. Its "Palpatine" before he becomes "the Emperor".

 

 

And even if the above were true (IE strengthening his position) some organisations you dont leave unless you are dead. Some organisations you either live up to your reputation or die horribly. Does it make it better? No... perhaps not. But if you have the choise between seeing your wife and children killed and killing someone else, most opt for what is behind door number one.

 

Just as your example was an easily constructed example of "grey". My point is that each is equally valid. I'm not arguing for alignments, I'm arguing for options. I don't care what the justification is for being able to do "bad" things, I want the option to do them. If you want to do bad things and say, "Well, my character had his entire family killed and was kidnapped by bandits. Those bandits are holding his sister as blackmail to ensure that he does what they want. THAT'S why I need to kill this "chief nun of the abbott" that is doing nothing wrong, and is actually helping people. I don't WANT to, but I love my sister and promised I wouldn't let any harm come to her. Blood first." Great. My character will say this, "Yeah, I disliked the fact that she was sanctimonious. People need to turn to my god if they want help, so I can't let her live." Or, "She was known to have a lot of money, which is why she was able to do all the charity work she did- fortunately, now that money is mine." Or, "Heh- I hated those people she was helping. Let's see how well they do without her around now..." The act was the same, the motivations were not.

 

As to the "most successful evil we see", I don't think that is the point. In nice, shiny America, middle-class land, we don't see a whole lot of egregious evil. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, or hasn't happened in the past, or couldn't still happen. It just means it's less common now. Here are two good examples of "modern" evil, though there is no shortage of other examples that could be provided. These two cover quite a few bases (brutality, violence, enslavement, sexual predation, etc). http://www.huffingto..._n_1826236.html, http://en.wikipedia....ki/Joseph_Kony.

"they do it because they enjoy it." is a motivation other than "because it is bad haha"

Serial rapists, might be sick rather than deliberately harming others, or they may enjoy the feeling of power over others (which most of us will view as evil) but a rhetorician who can sway masses might also do so for enjoying power over others.

Joseph Kony wanted to create his own state, and thought creating a child-army would be the way to do it. Did the pope who called for the children's crusade to the holy land think himself evil? There was a great deal of orphans and poor that got to attempt something for the benefit of all Christianity there. even with them sold to slavers (as historians believe is the most likely end to that particular episode) might have been an income for the church, and a way to get rid of unwanted people.

You and I might find that evil, because we judge based on our morals and ethics: I believe that if an action harms others strictly for my benefit, that is evil. But that is just not the only way to look at things. The pope got his money, the slavers theirs too, distant lands got a larger labourer force (and those exotic white slaves) and Medieval Europe got rid of people it could not support. I can see how some wouldn't even consider it evil.

As long as these views are subjective you cannot accept the absolute. Maybe it's because I am a fan of Nietzsche (most misunderstood philosopher of all time) But I am no fan of absolutism. it's 1-track thinking. Me, I prefer consequentialist thinking over categorical thinking.

[Michael_Galt]

Or, their "motivation" for doing something is BECAUSE it is bad. That might be the entire reason they derive pleasure/satisfaction from doing it. They know they are breaking the rules, violating people's sense of what is "right". Like exhibitionists that feel the need to have sex in public. If it didn't attract any attention, while they might still enjoy the sex, they wouldn't derive nearly as much from it. Maybe you don't necessarily believe in violence, but you think it would be "fun" to beat a pacifist, only because they are morally bound to not fight back with force. Some people do "bad" things because they can, because they feel they have no other choice, because they feel they aren't really bad things, because they feel they're necessary, and sometimes, just because they ARE bad. Maybe you have no real "problem" with crosses, but you enjoy breaking ones on the side of the road because you know it brings anguish/anger/frustration to the families that erected them there in memory of their loved ones. You likely won't even get to witness it, and they might not even notice, but you do it with that hope in mind. If you didn't realize that most people label that act as bad, and "desecrating", you wouldn't derive the pleasure. This is chicken and egg here. Not asking for the writers to "define" evil, but to allow what could easily be "considered" evil to be legitimate options, with the same level of focus as on the "good". If there are 2 "good" options, there should be 2 "evil" options.

[JFSOCC]

Or, their "motivation" for doing something is BECAUSE it is bad. That might be the entire reason they derive pleasure/satisfaction from doing it. So it's not because they are bad, but because they receive pleasure from it. Selfish, but a motivation They know they are breaking the rules, violating people's sense of what is "right". So it is the reaction to their behaviour which motivates them, perhaps because they feel the need to stand out. Like exhibitionists that feel the need to have sex in public. If it didn't attract any attention, while they might still enjoy the sex, they wouldn't derive nearly as much from it. Actually, studies find that people who are caught actually lose their sexual excitement. it is the draw of the forbidden which works for them. It's socially unacceptable behaviour (so it's acting out, in a way) but I would hardly consider someone having consensual sex in public to be evil, just stupid. Maybe you don't necessarily believe in violence, but you think it would be "fun" to beat a pacifist, only because they are morally bound to not fight back with force. So it is a sense of power over others that motivates you. Some people do "bad" things because they can,Power because they feel they have no other choice,If it's not a choice, is it truly their action? because they feel they aren't really bad things,My point, evil is ultimately subjective, as is good. Does saving lives make you good? what about overpopulation and overharvesting of resources because you save millions from malaria? because they feel they're necessary, You keep coming up with these beautiful motivations and sometimes, just because they ARE bad. By your opinion.(and who knows maybe mine) I don't think you'll find that many sociopaths that are that far down the line though. Maybe you have no real "problem" with crosses, but you enjoy breaking ones on the side of the road because you know it brings anguish/anger/frustration to the families that erected them there in memory of their loved ones. Again, getting an emotional response (must be very lonely) You likely won't even get to witness it, and they might not even notice, but you do it with that hope in mind. Acting out comes from not knowing how to deal with unhappiness If you didn't realize that most people label that act as bad, and "desecrating", you wouldn't derive the pleasure. But would they truly feel pleasure? or is that the hope? I can see the catharsis of destruction in a game, but in real life I doubt you would feel pleasure at breaking something. (unless you hated it, or whom it belongs too. in which case the motivation is petty revenge) This is chicken and egg here. Not asking for the writers to "define" evil, but to allow what could easily be "considered" evil to be legitimate options, with the same level of focus as on the "good". If there are 2 "good" options, there should be 2 "evil" options.

My comments in red.

And yes, I see your point. in this sense I agree with you. but I don't need pointed out to me that they are bad. I can use my own ethics to decide what I find good or bad. My fear is an infantile version of good vs evil. (well not really, I doubt Obsidian would do that) There is no universal classification of what is good and evil, that's the point.

[Orogun01]

"they do it because they enjoy it." is a motivation other than "because it is bad haha"

Serial rapists, might be sick rather than deliberately harming others, or they may enjoy the feeling of power over others (which most of us will view as evil) but a rhetorician who can sway masses might also do so for enjoying power over others.

Actually most serial rapists are diagnosed with some form of psychosis or social disorder that prevents them from fully engaging in courting rituals, they seek nothing more than what many other men want but they lack the means to obtain it. Both cases you present are of people merely exercising their power (albeit, forcefully) over others, the act itself is only as evil as the ends it produces.

Joseph Kony wanted to create his own state, and thought creating a child-army would be the way to do it. Did the pope who called for the children's crusade to the holy land think himself evil? There was a great deal of orphans and poor that got to attempt something for the benefit of all Christianity there. even with them sold to slavers (as historians believe is the most likely end to that particular episode) might have been an income for the church, and a way to get rid of unwanted people.

You and I might find that evil, because we judge based on our morals and ethics: I believe that if an action harms others strictly for my benefit, that is evil. But that is just not the only way to look at things. The pope got his money, the slavers theirs too, distant lands got a larger labourer force (and those exotic white slaves) and Medieval Europe got rid of people it could not support. I can see how some wouldn't even consider it evil.

If you judge morals from an extreme relativistic view then there really isn't any good or evil outside of a system of belief or goal.

As long as these views are subjective you cannot accept the absolute. Maybe it's because I am a fan of Nietzsche (most misunderstood philosopher of all time) But I am no fan of absolutism. it's 1-track thinking. Me, I prefer consequentialist thinking over categorical thinking.

Then you probably aren't big fan of ethics, since they are basically forced absolute values on a relativist world.

Although I do dislike consequentialism, because you can have someone like Kony who acts out of weak morals and low virtues but may achieve some greater good. Now, people may believe that the ends justify the means but they don't justify the person. Just because they achieved a good doesn't make them any less virtuous or any less likely to commit atrocities again if given the chance and without a satisfactory end there is no redemption.

Truly is the means what makes a man virtuous, because is the means what he controls and they are a reflection of his character. Is the means what he directly affects and even should he find himself forced in a situation to make the hard choice where the ends damn him either way. He may still remain virtuous as long as his character remains so.

[Farbautisonn]

Just as your example was an easily constructed example of "grey". My point is that each is equally valid. I'm not arguing for alignments, I'm arguing for options.

I agree 100%

 

I don't care what the justification is for being able to do "bad" things, I want the option to do them. If you want to do bad things and say, "Well, my character had his entire family killed and was kidnapped by bandits. Those bandits are holding his sister as blackmail to ensure that he does what they want. THAT'S why I need to kill this "chief nun of the abbott" that is doing nothing wrong, and is actually helping people. I don't WANT to, but I love my sister and promised I wouldn't let any harm come to her. Blood first." Great. My character will say this, "Yeah, I disliked the fact that she was sanctimonious. People need to turn to my god if they want help, so I can't let her live." Or, "She was known to have a lot of money, which is why she was able to do all the charity work she did- fortunately, now that money is mine." Or, "Heh- I hated those people she was helping. Let's see how well they do without her around now..." The act was the same, the motivations were not.

Whilst I do get your point, without exploring a moral dilemma or putting that dilemma into a certain context, the action has no meaning and it tells no story. It reduces storytelling to "can" / "cannot", "Do" / "do not". Seems somewhat flat to me. If we are just given the option to slaughter wholesale thats fine. But there has to be repecussions to that. There has to be a story attatched to that. Personally I would be in favour of every single NPC being killable. Man woman and child. But then Id counter that with some effects. If you burn down a community, the next one will likely not fancy you much. And even if they do fancy you out of some rivalry with the last community, they likely wont trust you not to try the same with them. And after killing enough communities, sooner or later you kill someone who is a relative of one with power, or someone with power. That usually doesnt turn out that well. IF you have a group of mercs 20 *levels* your senior or with 20 years of experience in assassinations or someone who fields a small army against your group of four, then chances are, you will die. Horribly. However alot of people who want the option to go on a wholesale killing spree do NOT want that group of mercs, assassins or army/militia come by and take you down. They do not want to have to reload only to get killed. They want their cake and the ability to eat it too.

 

I have zero issue with options. As long as these come with consequenses. A smart man can illude consequenses for a long time. A lifetime perhaps. A nitwit who kills on a whim? Not so much.

 

As to the "most successful evil we see", I don't think that is the point. In nice, shiny America, middle-class land, we don't see a whole lot of egregious evil. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, or hasn't happened in the past, or couldn't still happen. It just means it's less common now. Here are two good examples of "modern" evil, though there is no shortage of other examples that could be provided. These two cover quite a few bases (brutality, violence, enslavement, sexual predation, etc). http://www.huffingto..._n_1826236.html, http://en.wikipedia....ki/Joseph_Kony.

I'd beg to differ. Kony is a vile man (extremely so) but he is small potatoes. He isnt a Stalin, or a Hitler. He isnt a Thomas Jefferson.

 

And yep, man does evil things, no question. But there are usually consequenses, and the people who purpetrate evil successfully are usually cunning or smart about it and do it on a very limited scale. The only time consequenses are avoided is if you are a head of state or someone with sufficiant power and popularity to rewrite history to your own liking. Kony will be relegated to the shame and horror pages of the Historybooks. Guys like Jefferson and Stalin are still quite popular in their own nations despite history and the obvious facts.

 

Successfull evil is able to purpetrate evil on a massive scale. Its able to wipe out entire ethnic or social groups. It is able to escape more or less completely any consequenses and do so for a lifetime. We are seeing it in these days where a man who took the hippocratic oath is causing wholesale slaughter against his own people. Sure he will also end up as a "villain" in the history books, but in another time and certainly if he succeeds in stifling the rebellion his own history books will vindicate him completely.

 

Its a bit crude to relegate a measure of evil to "numbers", Ill grant you that, but unfortunately I dont see any escaping it. Personally I do believe that smart evil doesnt kill people unless it really serves a purpose and that you can get one hell of alot further with the love and respect of your people than with fear. But fear does work. And in that sense, numbers do play a role. No matter how

it might seem.

[JFSOCC]

 

Actually most serial rapists are diagnosed with some form of psychosis or social disorder that prevents them from fully engaging in courting rituals, they seek nothing more than what many other men want but they lack the means to obtain it. Both cases you present are of people merely exercising their power (albeit, forcefully) over others, the act itself is only as evil as the ends it produces.

truth

If you judge morals from an extreme relativistic view then there really isn't any good or evil outside of a system of belief or goal.

/

that's what I am saying

Then you probably aren't big fan of ethics, since they are basically forced absolute values on a relativist world.

Quite the contrary, I'm a big fan of Ethics, and if you think Nietzsche was about absolute values then you fail to understand him. many people do, unfortunately. (the Nazis first and foremost)

Although I do dislike consequentialism, because you can have someone like Kony who acts out of weak morals and low virtues but may achieve some greater good. Now, people may believe that the ends justify the means but they don't justify the person. Just because they achieved a good doesn't make them any less virtuous or any less likely to commit atrocities again if given the chance and without a satisfactory end there is no redemption.

Truly is the means what makes a man virtuous, because is the means what he controls and they are a reflection of his character. Is the means what he directly affects and even should he find himself forced in a situation to make the hard choice where the ends damn him either way. He may still remain virtuous as long as his character remains so.

I don't think the ends justify the means, but consequentialist reasoning will go further than a mere "the greater good"(oh how I hate that sentence. it reminds me of that scene in hot fuzz...

Consequentialism is the idea that the world that results is better off than before. I don;t believe that harming children and raping them will bring a better world.

[Orogun01]

Quite the contrary, I'm a big fan of Ethics, and if you think Nietzsche was about absolute values then you fail to understand him. many people do, unfortunately. (the Nazis first and foremost)

He is easy to misinterpret, specially when it comes to ethics. His focus was mostly on personal empowerment and active opposition against nihilism, so is partly his fault for exposing so little of his views on morals.

I don't think the ends justify the means, but consequentialist reasoning will go further than a mere "the greater good"(oh how I hate that sentence. it reminds me of that scene in hot fuzz...

Consequentialism is the idea that the world that results is better off than before. I don;t believe that harming children and raping them will bring a better world.

I don't tend to think of consequentialism in such confined terms, in said cases is just utilitarianism and it searches for "the greater good for the greater amount of people"(do you hate this sentence too? ).

But my point is that whether or not the end result is favorable it is independent of the character of a person. As such consequentialist ethics aren't really the ethics of an individual but rather those of a state or government. The word ethics come from the Greek ethos meaning character, and while consequentialist ethics do represent the character of communities we can only roleplay a person at a time. Although if there ever was the chance that a game allows the player enough power to actually affect the game world then they may concern with the greater whole.

[AGX-17]

I think what they really need to do is involve more factions in these choices.

 

For example, in a scenario where a country is occupied by an oppressive invader, the "good" choice would be to help the occupied people fight back while the "evil" choice is to help the invaders crush the rebellion.

 

However, if you include additional interests in the scenario, you can add a lot of variety to both "good" and "evil" choices. There could be factions that want to support the oppressed people for very selfish and nefarious reasons.

 

For example, a group of weapon traders might want the rebellion to last longer so they can sell weapons to both sides and they'll pay you to help the oppressed people fight the invaders. Another nation might want to weaken both the occupied and the invading nation so that they can expand their influence. The occupied nation might have a caste system and the aristocrats are willing to sacrifice a lot of commoners and other lower class people in order to expel the invaders.

 

A variation I thought of was that helping the invaded citizenry fight back as a kneejerk reaction would not necessarily be the best choice for those people's well-being. Perhaps the invaders would bring down severe, brutal punishment when you leave.

 

Or perhaps the invaders would bring safety, health and prosperity to this occupied territory, and the descendants of the occupied people would think their ancestors were mad to not want to be part of this great empire.

Edited October 18, 2012 by AGX-17

[Michael_Galt]

Well, I must say, I am impressed with the robust discussion here. I'm even MORE impressed that everyone has managed to keep it civil. Yay! I think, for the most part, the point has been effectively made that there really needs to be true alternatives in available quest solutions, optimally. I am pretty comfortable with expecting that will happen, based on who they have working on the game, but we will see. I wish we could see some of the developers' internal discussions of these types of things, that would be truly interesting.

[Michael_Galt]

 

Whilst I do get your point, without exploring a moral dilemma or putting that dilemma into a certain context, the action has no meaning and it tells no story. It reduces storytelling to "can" / "cannot", "Do" / "do not". Seems somewhat flat to me. If we are just given the option to slaughter wholesale thats fine. But there has to be repecussions to that. There has to be a story attatched to that. Personally I would be in favour of every single NPC being killable. Man woman and child. But then Id counter that with some effects. If you burn down a community, the next one will likely not fancy you much. And even if they do fancy you out of some rivalry with the last community, they likely wont trust you not to try the same with them. And after killing enough communities, sooner or later you kill someone who is a relative of one with power, or someone with power. That usually doesnt turn out that well. IF you have a group of mercs 20 *levels* your senior or with 20 years of experience in assassinations or someone who fields a small army against your group of four, then chances are, you will die. Horribly. However alot of people who want the option to go on a wholesale killing spree do NOT want that group of mercs, assassins or army/militia come by and take you down. They do not want to have to reload only to get killed. They want their cake and the ability to eat it too.

 

I have zero issue with options. As long as these come with consequenses. A smart man can illude consequenses for a long time. A lifetime perhaps. A nitwit who kills on a whim? Not so much.

 

I'd beg to differ. Kony is a vile man (extremely so) but he is small potatoes. He isnt a Stalin, or a Hitler. He isnt a Thomas Jefferson.

 

And yep, man does evil things, no question. But there are usually consequenses, and the people who purpetrate evil successfully are usually cunning or smart about it and do it on a very limited scale. The only time consequenses are avoided is if you are a head of state or someone with sufficiant power and popularity to rewrite history to your own liking. Kony will be relegated to the shame and horror pages of the Historybooks. Guys like Jefferson and Stalin are still quite popular in their own nations despite history and the obvious facts.

 

Successfull evil is able to purpetrate evil on a massive scale. Its able to wipe out entire ethnic or social groups. It is able to escape more or less completely any consequenses and do so for a lifetime. We are seeing it in these days where a man who took the hippocratic oathis causing wholesale slaughter against his own people. Sure he will also end up as a "villain" in the history books, but in another time and certainly if he succeeds in stifling the rebellion his own history books will vindicate him completely.

 

Its a bit crude to relegate a measure of evil to "numbers", Ill grant you that, but unfortunately I dont see any escaping it. Personally I do believe that smart evil doesnt kill people unless it really serves a purpose and that you can get one hell of alot further with the love and respect of your people than with fear. But fear does work. And in that sense, numbers do play a role. No matter how

it might seem.

 

Yeah, I just don't realistically think they could write and script all the myriad of options, obviously. Now, if they just picked 1-2 of those various "evil" choices and fleshed them out, that would be a good compromise. Clearly there is no way for them to account for everything. I also think if they gave the option for the action, and didn't try to "explain" the action, that would leave more room for "role-playing", and less likely someone would get upset because they forced them to "violate" their internally recognized reason for an action.

 

I would LOVE consequences. Not BG consequences, which was just poorly designed in that regard (entire city's guard came crashing down on you), but something that scaled with your "evil" acts. Bounty gets bigger, more and better skilled mercenaries attack/ambush you. At a certain level, city guards automatically recognize you and attack. Perhaps certain characters actually INITIATE business/quests with you, because you have now passed the litmus for not being a law-abiding citizen. Make some quest that allow you to "redeem" yourself, or to at least get the authorities to look the other way. That would be the right way to do it.

 

Yeah, I'm not saying those two are anywhere in the league of prior dictators, kings, what have you, just that there are people alive today, that are quite wealthy and powerful, that didn't pursue their power in some "sneaky", "clever" way. They murdered and raped people left and right. There are a lot of people that seem to be of the belief that those types of people just don't exist in real life, therefore those types of choices shouldn't be in the game. And while I won't argue that their "scale" will never be at that of some of the great tyrants, I am fully confident that each man is responsible for the deaths of thousands, and neither is dead yet. I don't think that if you put them in the same room as Hitler or Stalin or Mao, that you could REALLY say, yeah, you guys aren't as bad. If they had access to the same resources, they might be just as bad or worse, in terms of net negative impact.

 

I think what they really need to do is involve more factions in these choices.

 

For example, in a scenario where a country is occupied by an oppressive invader, the "good" choice would be to help the occupied people fight back while the "evil" choice is to help the invaders crush the rebellion.

 

However, if you include additional interests in the scenario, you can add a lot of variety to both "good" and "evil" choices. There could be factions that want to support the oppressed people for very selfish and nefarious reasons.

 

For example, a group of weapon traders might want the rebellion to last longer so they can sell weapons to both sides and they'll pay you to help the oppressed people fight the invaders. Another nation might want to weaken both the occupied and the invading nation so that they can expand their influence. The occupied nation might have a caste system and the aristocrats are willing to sacrifice a lot of commoners and other lower class people in order to expel the invaders.

 

A variation I thought of was that helping the invaded citizenry fight back as a kneejerk reaction would not necessarily be the best choice for those people's well-being. Perhaps the invaders would bring down severe, brutal punishment when you leave.

 

Or perhaps the invaders would bring safety, health and prosperity to this occupied territory, and the descendants of the occupied people would think their ancestors were mad to not want to be part of this great empire.

 

I like this, as it shows more ways to incorporate it into gameplay, which was really what I was getting at. But you're talking more macro, and I want macro AND micro.

[Bos_hybrid]

I don't understand the "if you don't let us be the bad guy, you are forcing us to be good" argument about RPGs.

 

But that is exactly what happens.

 

Grey games, force the role of hero/anti-hero on the player.

 

You go from Jade Empire, with different endings, different characters and different abilities depending on your path.

 

To DA2............

 

Do we need it to be labeled as closed fist or dark side.... No of course not. But the removal of an alignment metre should not equal the removal of the path.

 

Playing a homicidal maniac to me just means that you are trying to find cracks in the game that you can complain about.

 

Nope. It's just as valid a play style as night in shinning armor saving the damsel in distress.

 

 

Another thing I want to talk about is people getting mixed up about the term grey world.

 

You can have 'grey' factions(and therefore a seemingly grey world), but inside those factions you still have good, bad and everything in between.

 

An example, the Vailian Republics has an electoral council. I'm guessing this is made up of senators and wannabe senators(or whatever they want to call themselves) that run for election. Now while the Vailian Republic is 'grey', it's senators are of all kinds. Some are for the greater good, others selfish, cold and calculating, some are neither, but they aren't all grey.

 

When I hear the world is grey, to me that means the factions and beliefs/religion(no temples of Cyric) are all grey. Not the people. At least that is how it should be.

Edited October 19, 2012 by Bos_hybrid

[oldmanpaco]

Alignment is for chumps.A good person can do bad things but it only matters if people know what he has done and care. Alignment/karma/light side/dark side should be done away with and reaction flags used for interactions.

 

You have a list of possible outcomes for each quest/event and NPC react to them based on what they know and care about. A mob boss does not care if you killed someone but he might care if you betrayed a partner or worked with the authorities. A priest is probably more concerned with any mayhem you have caused or prevented as opposed to any political figures you have blackmailed.

 

It's harder to script but it's better than a reputation system that only rewards 'good deeds.

[xLegionx]

In my own opinion I believe the "evil alignments" are truly the only way for main characters to be reasonably evil. The reason people don't believe in that sort of evil today is as I said because it doesn't fit in our present society. The law of today is designed to counter "evil" people and anyone who chooses that path has a far more difficult life than what they could have if they just acted like just civilians.

 

BUT...what about thousands of years ago? In monarchies people were alway killing the next one in line to the throne so they could make their way to being king or queen. And these kinds of people equal to the power our republicans and democrats have today. Back then, murder was very easy to get away with because people of medieval times wouldn't care if some poor peasant got himself killed in an alleyway. Lawful evil, neutral evil, and Chaotic evil was quite frankly welcome in those kinds of society's.

 

The fantasy games we are playing right now are set in these times and not in today's time so in truth there is really no need to compare today's society with fantasy society because they are not set in our present time. They don't have the real resources that we today have so if anyone wants to play an evil character "like me" they should. Getting rid of being evil entirely and just leaving hero/anti-hero crap is not fun. I find it very enjoyable when I choose my character's alignment because it feels like I set my own personal attitude on how I act with the world around me. Evil people have succeeded in their own goals in the past before whether people realize it or not so there is really no excuse to block it out entirely.

 

If people here believe that just having evil actions in the game is pointless then they really don't get the point of an rpg. INVENT a way if you must. Maybe your character wants to oneday get a sexy mansion or oneday retire and run a merchant business. Makeup a reason in your mind why your character would act the way he does.

 

For example, my drow necromancer is neutral evil. He doesn't like it when things don't go his way so he looks at that and adjusts things in a way that do go his way. He doesn't care about what is good because he feels it's a waste of time and energy. He dabbles in necromancy in the most sincere and evil ways which require him to do things against the law so his point of view on the law and good is vague at best. He obeys the law of course only to a certain point or if he is discovered. If he sees more gain in serving evil individuals than lawful individuals then he will do it all for the sake of necromantic prowess. He wants to gain more better and powerful items to make carving the way to his own goals which is the state of lichdom or having a place in the king's court OR having a nice castle where he can study his necromantic art in peace. If doing good gives him more of a reward then he will do it however it distastes him because he doesn't want the law to really get stuck on his back all day.

 

Sometimes people will be evil just because of their beliefs. We all know that evil necromancers are...well...evil because they murder people and raise them as undead or invade sacred burial crypts in search of necromantic materials. These are against the religious beliefs of good holy churches and will send out good paladins to quell these evil necromancers wherever they may hide so you can maybe see why your main character doesn't like law or good people because it has proved a difficult obstacle in the past so they may choose to weaken the law in order to get their way and make they're lives better.

 

I hope maybe that clears up some of the issue. Thank you!

Edited October 19, 2012 by xLegionx

[Bos_hybrid]

Q: Are you looking to break any ground in terms of the design mechanics, such as moral choices or relationships? What are you looking to do that isn't generally done?

 

Chris Avellone:Also, I think a lot of games have fallen into the hole of the evil choice is always a psychotic option. There's a whole spectrum of other stuff you can do in conversation that I'm looking forward to doing. Sometimes depending on the franchise it does make sense that you have these really extreme morality bars, because that's the nature of the franchise.

 

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2012-10-19-project-eternity-how-chris-avellone-blew-by-4-million-on-kickstarter

[Paul D]

Fascinating discussion thank you to all involved.

[MoobooMagoo]

Good / evil is great and everything, but what I want to see are more lawful / chaotic choices.

 

Neverwinter Nights 2 had a great example of this. Early on you could choose to either be part of the thieves guild or the militia. I never played through the thieves guild part, but in the militia path you had good and evil choices still. I thought that was great because if I rolled a lawful evil character I wouldn't have to go through the thieve's guild because it was the 'evil' path.

 

That is what I want to see more of. I don't like having a 'good' and 'evil' path so much as I like multiple paths that each have their own 'good' and 'evil' choices within them.

[Michael_Galt]

That works too, but is essentially the same thing. And now, we pretty much have confirmation that their will be a variety of "moral" choices to pick from, which is excellent.

[Sykid]

I like evil companions that are well done. Hanharr is probably my favourite from KOTOR2. Loghain, HK-47, and Kreia (though it's arguable that she's really evil) also come to mind.

[Farbautisonn]

 

 

Yeah, I just don't realistically think they could write and script all the myriad of options, obviously. Now, if they just picked 1-2 of those various "evil" choices and fleshed them out, that would be a good compromise. Clearly there is no way for them to account for everything. I also think if they gave the option for the action, and didn't try to "explain" the action, that would leave more room for "role-playing", and less likely someone would get upset because they forced them to "violate" their internally recognized reason for an action.

I follow you here. The scripting would be hellish. However I cant seem to remember having ever been able to roleplay a "lawfull evil dominator" in a CRPG, so thats a script Id long to see. And I do see your point on not "explaining" it. However if left too open we are left with nothing except actions and few consequenses. There must be a framework and the occasional guideline. Or so I believe.

 

I would LOVE consequences. Not BG consequences, which was just poorly designed in that regard (entire city's guard came crashing down on you), but something that scaled with your "evil" acts. Bounty gets bigger, more and better skilled mercenaries attack/ambush you. At a certain level, city guards automatically recognize you and attack. Perhaps certain characters actually INITIATE business/quests with you, because you have now passed the litmus for not being a law-abiding citizen. Make some quest that allow you to "redeem" yourself, or to at least get the authorities to look the other way. That would be the right way to do it.

I like the way you are thinking.

 

Yeah, I'm not saying those two are anywhere in the league of prior dictators, kings, what have you, just that there are people alive today, that are quite wealthy and powerful, that didn't pursue their power in some "sneaky", "clever" way. They murdered and raped people left and right. There are a lot of people that seem to be of the belief that those types of people just don't exist in real life, therefore those types of choices shouldn't be in the game. And while I won't argue that their "scale" will never be at that of some of the great tyrants, I am fully confident that each man is responsible for the deaths of thousands, and neither is dead yet. I don't think that if you put them in the same room as Hitler or Stalin or Mao, that you could REALLY say, yeah, you guys aren't as bad. If they had access to the same resources, they might be just as bad or worse, in terms of net negative impact.

Sure. Most of them are either dictators in third world nations or the heads of criminal organisations with an average lifespan of 15 years before someone buries them neck deep in the sand and then burns their face off with a motorcycle tire accellerating in their head.

 

Some of them are clever enough to be quite brutal and still avoid getting pinned down or captured. But the machiavellian evil is something that really hasnt been done in any crpg. The closest we have come was in BG2 where Irenicus played the part. I have yet to see it as a viable option in a CRPG. And its not like history lacks any examples. Italian politics in the middle ages alone should give ample inspiration. But most of the time we are stuck with halfarsed halfwitted and hamfisted evil... and we are supposed to believe that an individual void of smarts, cunning etc should make it to the very top? Not likely. Such a person is an enforcer, not the brain. The Sazs Tam, Palpatine, and my personal favorite for intelligent lawfull evil Sememmon. (Before his alignment slide).

 

Being loved by your subjects as a prince means you are able to get away with much more, means youre safer in your power as people conspirering against you would find few supporters, and you need fewer high maintance institutions such as a large standing army and a vast intelligence network. If your subjects truely sees you as a force of good and wholesome law then noone will mind the odd virgin going missing or the occasional bun turning up in the gutter with torture wounds. Noone will see any wrong with me appropriating land from lesser nobles or going on a crusade against a neighboring power. Because I am obviously "good". And if I keep proving that by outward displays of mercy, generosity, kindness and just behaviour, noone will mind what goes on behind closed doors, and in dark depraved cellars.

[Gromnir]

The problem with playing evil is ...

 

1) we disagree that the problem is the ridiculous axis

 

the axis is kinda lame, but is not the attempt to create positive/negative options that is the problem... in our estimation.

 

2) insular evil is lame

 

folks who does game-style evil frequently would end up ostracized or institutionalized. take old lady's purse, kick a puppy into on-coming traffic or sell your sister into slavery or... whatever. recognizably Insular evil acts is... petty. evil don' work so well in bite-sized morsels. need evil for a purpose to be seeming reasonable... fulfill some goal.

 

would be interesting for obsidian to construct an Evil Plan for the player... would needs be almost a game-in-a-game. that being said, the dialogue mechanic with largely insular choices is the problem, not the axis itself.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[stiltskin]

actually the good choice in the opressive government example would not be instigation or support of rebelion, but persuading the evil overlord to use more efficient and laid-back system of governing, which controls its people by giving them carrots too, not only the stick-treatment. in feudal setting, few common people give a damn who sits on the throne, as long as you give them the bread and the games (and possibly some health care and chance to rise above their rank to appease the ambitious), while not behaving like a d*ck. iron fist rule calls for immediate heavy investments into secret police, army, etc (to battle possible rebelion, which in the end may not be enough - think of all the roman emperors murdered by praetorians), which could be used to promote industry (earning money for stuff like army to gain more land, secret police to keep nobles in line, research and more industry, in the end still having enough to indulge oneself). why would you want to be anything less than a havelock vetinari, i cannot fathom

[Orogun01]

actually the good choice in the opressive government example would not be instigation or support of rebelion, but persuading the evil overlord to use more efficient and laid-back system of governing, which controls its people by giving them carrots too, not only the stick-treatment. in feudal setting, few common people give a damn who sits on the throne, as long as you give them the bread and the games (and possibly some health care and chance to rise above their rank to appease the ambitious), while not behaving like a d*ck. iron fist rule calls for immediate heavy investments into secret police, army, etc (to battle possible rebelion, which in the end may not be enough - think of all the roman emperors murdered by praetorians), which could be used to promote industry (earning money for stuff like army to gain more land, secret police to keep nobles in line, research and more industry, in the end still having enough to indulge oneself). why would you want to be anything less than a havelock vetinari, i cannot fathom

I think in the particular example you provide is the intent that matter, both the rebel and the reformist act out the desire of change for the better with varying means. One of them is just misguided but that all depends on their "evil" government, on whether it acquiesce to reform or brings down the hammer.

 

The main problem with ethics in the real world is that they have to be judged on a case by case basis using different means but since we are dealing with role playing its the intent that's most important. It is really up to the writers to present each option so that it each becomes "tailored" to the player's views or to build up to a few reasonable conclusions.

[Nonek]

The most effectively "evil" character i've ever played was Michael Thornton in a veteran runthrough of Alpha Protocol, he was calm and polite in almost every situation and devoted to completing his objectives, but every conversation and choice he participated in was informed by ulterior motives. He watched everybody with the dead eyes of a viper, and manipulated them into believing him a friend and colleague. It was only when he tired of Mina's talking at the end of the game, that the mask slipped and he revealed what a psycopath lay under those calm manners and calculated responses. Too late for his erstwhile master to realise what a mistakle he'd made in trusting the veteran intelligence operative at all, or to realise that he'd just given up the reigns of his power and lost every ally around the world that he relied upon.

 

The beautiful thing was, that ending surprised me as well, I had no idea that the character i'd been playing was so mercenary. Everything coalesced in those final moments, i'd started out with the intention of merely playing a cool professional, but it outgrew me in a very organic fashion, until those ending choices seemed the only logical steps.