Evil--is there discrimination?

[Loch Belthadd]

I see good as wanting to help people you don't know just for the sake of helping them. You might get a reward, but that's generally not why you do it. I see evil as more of a "if it doesn't help me why should I do it?" type thing. My one and only evil character was considered good by all the other pcs because of how much I helped random beggars/orphans/poor people for (seemingly) no reason, but my real reason was to create an army of loyal people whom I had helped so that I could start a coup in the country I was in and shove my ideals down the populaces throat.

[Nomadic]

When I get into discussions relating to good/evil with my players I try to define it thusly:

Good = Altruistic and Kind
Neutral = Selfish (a bit) and Amoral
Evil = Selfish and Brutal

I once played a female halberd-and-kukri-swinging mercenary captain who i defined in my mind with greed and cynicism. So she had no trouble with creating a "disguise" from the remains of a fallen orc (with a knife; okay, i probably went a bit too far there) and would generally do anything for money.

Seems awfully evil to me according to your definition of evil (which I tend to agree with).

[LordVreeg]

GP, I wouldn't call it an evil empire, just a brutal, self absorbed one.  
Now, the idea of keeping people from getting off the wheel.. .those guys are bad.

[LD]

Nomadic- while CC's character as a whole might be evil due to the "would generally do anything for money." part;  the disguise seems neutral. Apparently there was a reason for the disguise. I was just confused why someone would have thought the disguise was inherently evil.

[Gamer Printshop]

GP, I wouldn't call it an evil empire, just a brutal, self absorbed one.  
Now, the idea of keeping people from getting off the wheel.. .those guys are bad.

However at the Shogunate level and the Imperial Court, hiding salvation is state policy, so they too are evil.

Those in power, I mentioned, was refering to provincial lords, who, though undead, are just power hungry and seeks to maintain their position at the top of society. So I agree, they are brutal and self-absorbed, but not evil.

[Nomadic]

Nomadic- while CC's character as a whole might be evil due to the "would generally do anything for money." part;  the disguise seems neutral. Apparently there was a reason for the disguise. I was just confused why someone would have thought the disguise was inherently evil.

Well if you think cutting up people to make a disguise is ok there's not much I can say to change your mind :P
...
It wasn't that cutting people up to make a disguise was evil, it was that being an evil person made cutting said person up ok in their eyes.

[LD]

>>It wasn't that cutting people up to make a disguise was evil, it was that being an evil person made cutting said person up ok in their eyes.

Well... Yes and especially if the person wasn't dead when they were cut or that was the only reason to kill them--IE in DnD the orc was not terrorizing people or orcs are not necessarily an "evil" race in that setting.

But that statement is a little like saying:

Getting into yelling arguments with people is not evil per se;
But evil people think it's a great idea to get into yelling arguments with people at any time.

I think you might agree with me then on my major and minor assumptions.

Cutting up dead people to make a disguise may be disgusting and often unnecessary, but there might be a circumstance in a fantasy game where it might be necessary and not evil; BUT evil people will often cut up dead people for no reason at all-- just for their own enjoyment.

Which I can certainly agree with.

[LordVreeg]

LD, you, of all people, with your cool and quirky take on alignment, I expect and welcome interesting perspectives on this.

Your description of good above sounds like "Lawful Stupid", when they won't do what is needed to help more people.  This opens up a question to everyone.

Is the demarcation of 'good' how many net people you help, or do you lose good status points if you hurt anyone innocent purposely?
 Fireballing a house with a archvillain and 3 kids in it, is it evil if it was your only way to get him and it saves hundreds of lives?  

[Nomadic]

>>It wasn't that cutting people up to make a disguise was evil, it was that being an evil person made cutting said person up ok in their eyes.

Well... Yes and especially if the person wasn't dead when they were cut or that was the only reason to kill them--IE in DnD the orc was not terrorizing people or orcs are not necessarily an "evil" race in that setting.

But that statement is a little like saying:

Getting into yelling arguments with people is not evil per se;
But evil people think it's a great idea to get into yelling arguments with people at any time.

I think you might agree with me then on my major and minor assumptions.

Cutting up dead people to make a disguise may be disgusting and often unnecessary, but there might be a circumstance in a fantasy game where it might be necessary and not evil; BUT evil people will often cut up dead people for no reason at all-- just for their own enjoyment.

Which I can certainly agree with.

I wasn't agreeing or disagreeing with you so much as explaining to you what he was talking about since you seemed a bit confused about it.

[Eladris]

Sometimes the level of realism in a game, especially moral realism, can ruin a 'game'.

The ideas in this thread are great, but this quote 100% sums up the way I feel about the issue as both a player and GM.  For me, and my players, I think, moral ambiguity is too real an issue to constantly struggle with during the course of play.  The occasional debate can add a lot of flavor to a story, sure, but after the rigors of "real life", I prefer comedy or tragedy to, well, limbo.  When I do present these no-win situations to my players, I try to give them an "out", to avoid a three-hour session culminating in some players feeling as if nothing was accomplished.

There are merits to objectively exploring certain themes through role-playing; it's just not what I use gaming for!  You can chalk me up for a points-of-light preference, but that's probably already evident in my writing.

[Steerpike]

[blockquote=Vreeg]Fireballing a house with a archvillain and 3 kids in it, is it evil if it was your only way to get him and it saves hundreds of lives?[/blockquote]This seems to be what most alignment debates boil down to: utilitarianism vs. deontology, consequences vs. The Act Itself.  Because alignment in DnD is absolute - it's almost a substance, a material, or at least an energy, since it can be measured empirically and objectively, using spells - I'd say that as written, the alignment system tends towards a deontological view, since context and consequences are a lot more debatable and must by their very nature happen in the future, after an act has occured.

If alignment in DnD did work according to utilitarian logic, some bizarre scenarios could occur, wherein a change in alignment (or the universe's recognition of a good/evil action) could almost be divinatory: if the consequences are good and an action justified, a person's aura would glow Good, whereas if in fact they were not justified, it'd glow Evil, or whatever... imagine if the murderers of the Russian Tsar, or the pilots of the Enola Gay, were to cast Detect Good/Evil etc on themselvse after their actions.  There'd be no arguing with the results, whatever those results were.

It all gets very Dungeons & Discourse.  I sort of want to play that game...

I shouldn't get involved in an alignment thread again, however.

[LordVreeg]

Sometimes the level of realism in a game, especially moral realism, can ruin a 'game'.

The ideas in this thread are great, but this quote 100% sums up the way I feel about the issue as both a player and GM.  For me, and my players, I think, moral ambiguity is too real an issue to constantly struggle with during the course of play.  The occasional debate can add a lot of flavor to a story, sure, but after the rigors of "real life", I prefer comedy or tragedy to, well, limbo.  When I do present these no-win situations to my players, I try to give them an "out", to avoid a three-hour session culminating in some players feeling as if nothing was accomplished.

There are merits to objectively exploring certain themes through role-playing; it's just not what I use gaming for!  You can chalk me up for a points-of-light preference, but that's probably already evident in my writing.

I try to look at this from the standpoint of gamers as a whole, not just one style of play.  I like moral ambiguity in my games; but it is still a game.  There is constant humor in the better games (up to the use of the Village People lyrics by Bard Cucino lately)  It can be fun to have to stew over a moral dilimma once in a while, but it can eb a grind if it is an every game thing.

[LordVreeg]

[blockquote=Steerpike]I shouldn't get involved in an alignment thread again, however. [/blockquote]
Of course you should.  AS always, you add a lot to the discourse.  A lot of alignment is determined by the religeons, as well.  Back a few decades ago, when I was still using alignment, I had written up each churches view on the moral code, and some of them were very utilitarian, while others considered curtailing choice as serious as ending life.  

[LD]

"LD, you, of all people, with your cool and quirky take on alignment, I expect and welcome interesting perspectives on this.

Your description of good above sounds like "Lawful Stupid", when they won't do what is needed to help more people. This opens up a question to everyone."

I understand why you may have thought that the description is "lawful stupid"; but it is not really- I said that a good actor would try to find a way to not torture the creature. Torture rarely leads to correct information. A "good" person could probably justify torture, but that still does not make it a "good" action.

Then again in real life I have met very few "good" people; so perhaps I have too narrow a view of "good". I see people as self interested- not good or evil.

>>Is the demarcation of 'good' how many net people you help, or do you lose good status points if you hurt anyone innocent purposely?
Fireballing a house with a archvillain and 3 kids in it, is it evil if it was your only way to get him and it saves hundreds of lives?

Steerpike analyzed the situation better than I will say it here.

In real life concepts of good or bad depend on people to agree on a system of morality, I think it might be more profitable to analyze what is economically profitable because that is generally a much better way to measure utils of happiness.

If it was a net economic gain to kill everyone in the house, then there are no worries.

In a system that does not acknowledge god or a devil or an afterlife and which puts a clear price on human life-- it is a little easier to justify collateral damage. The problem, of course, is in the valuations- who knows what the children could have economically accomplished if you had not murdered them; who knows what their lives would really have been worth; and then there are the externalities-- will your murder of the children ruin the lives of the childrens' parents, their relatives? Will it start a blood-feud between your families?

It is difficult, if not impossible to answer these questions except in retrospect.

although RM Hare wrote some good things on utilitarianism, to save it from the fallacies inherent in Bentham's original works-- the crucial problem of course, is the lack of precise knowledge and computational power to discover everything immediately.

In Dungeons and Dragons, that action is clearly a neutral action at best. There is almost always another way to catch such a villain. In a fantasy world people can be "gooder" and "eviler" than they are in the real world. It is the DMs job to allow the good characters to be "amazing" while they are saving people-- to sacrifice more and to do more. It is a difficult job, but ultimately rewarding. The more one thinks and plans while playing DnD, the better it is as a literary excursion.

Of course, many people just play as a dungeon-crawl WOW style. Personally, I am not attracted by that style of play, but I fully understand that it appeals to many.

nomadic
>>I wasn't agreeing or disagreeing with you so much as explaining to you what he was talking about since you seemed a bit confused about it.

Ok, you were putting words into his mouth-- much as the Lorax who speaks for the trees because the trees have no mouths.

Steerpike
>>It all gets very Dungeons & Discourse. I sort of want to play that game...

They actually set out all the rules on the forums at KoalaWallop. :)

[LD]

Sometimes the level of realism in a game, especially moral realism, can ruin a 'game'.

The ideas in this thread are great, but this quote 100% sums up the way I feel about the issue as both a player and GM.  For me, and my players, I think, moral ambiguity is too real an issue to constantly struggle with during the course of play.  The occasional debate can add a lot of flavor to a story, sure, but after the rigors of "real life", I prefer comedy or tragedy to, well, limbo.  When I do present these no-win situations to my players, I try to give them an "out", to avoid a three-hour session culminating in some players feeling as if nothing was accomplished.

There are merits to objectively exploring certain themes through role-playing; it's just not what I use gaming for!  You can chalk me up for a points-of-light preference, but that's probably already evident in my writing.

Everyone plays for different reasons.
I consider DnD and RPGs to be intellectual exercises similar to a Model UN or Moot Court/Mock Trial.
But as you said- usually as a GM you have to give players an out even if you want to set up a "no win" situation. Most players do not find moral ambiguity to be entertaining.

This does bring up one issue though-- which is why many people do not take DnD or traditional fantasy/sci-fi seriously-- too often it fails to address the central questions of what makes people human; to attack traditional themes that are covered in mainstream classical literature.

Without the connection to life-- DnD will forever remain esoteric and relegated to the dustbin and corner of mainstream respect. But if DnD, like some movies, can help people explore life and love, and struggle, and learn how to become better human beings-- then it will no longer be considered a "kiddy" game; an intellectual "gnats" game.

It is not enough to teach battle tactics or min-maxing mathematics... for DnD to actually be respected- it needs to acquire the attributes of good computer games; like Civilization, like Age of Empires, Bioshock, etc. To educate, to challenge, and to help people become more "human."

That hidden potential is what I like about DnD. And that is how I like to play my fantasy games-- not to escape, but to discover (in an entertaining fashion) more about myself and to confront the pressing issues that challenge the world.

(When I make games, I spend hours pouring over the motivations of characters; the moral issues; and complicated webs of interaction-- I find it fulfilling to challenge both myself and the characters and to live a game that is like a book that is like a reflection of real life in a strange and fantastic setting. :))