Time for some Evil now!

[manfred]

Try to follow these rules and let your players blunder.
Myhuu - ha - ha -haaaaa!  

http://www.eviloverlord.com/lists/overlord.html

Yeah, the good old Evil Overlord lists. Should be added to the links. I just don't know, to the Fun section, or the Inspiration section.

Seems this thread is coming to its end. Anyone some ideas yet, before we make it an article?

[Barbarian Horde]

just saying, you could sum up what Dr. Phluid said in one sentence:


Evil is THEM.
              _
Them - Them n  anyone not allied, in leauge, grouped with, revering, worshipping, or liking, you, and those who would fall into some of the above categories if not were not there.

[DaWergyling]

After this   Good vs   Evil   Discussion, I think we should get back to the   Law - Chaos   dispute. I'll post a thread right now.

[CaptainPenguin]

A person who is evil could be defined as a person who does not follow a certain culture's social mores.
Let us make an example:
The Monkeylanders hold dear the ideal of always dancing under the moonlight. They do it every night, and then go to sleep.
The Crocodilians do not dance under the moonlight. It is considered improper by them. It is sinful to dance under the moonlight in Crocodilia.
So when Monkeylanders go to Crocodilia, the Crocodilians think they are evil, because they dance under the moonlight.

[CaptainPenguin]

# Beatiful people are more influential than ugly people, and therefore, more powerful. Destroy, either physically or socially, anyone more beautiful than you, exploit common people, only ally yourself with people slightly less beatiful than you.

A good excuse for vanity. You don't want anyone around more beautiful than you, so you claim that you are destroying them to get rid of the evil people. Then, you scream like a little baby when your ugly subordinates come to get you!  

[Nobody]

C'mon, please. Good and Evil is classified by INTENT. What is the intent of your actions, why are you doing them. Just because somebody can misinterperate something as evil does not make Evil a subjective thing. If you are Good, then your actions are motivated by a desire to help others. If you are Evil, then your actions are motivated by a desire to hurt others. It is not about your actions or what you do, but why you do it. This means that no ACTION can be considered Evil or Good for any reason. All that can be done is to try and interperet intent and reason. WHY did they do it. It is not subjective.

Also, do not get Evil confused with Neutral. Neutral is often confused with evil because Neatral is the Power alignment. It means that you do not care either way if your actions are right or wrong, so long as they serve your purpose. That means that in order to gain allies, you might help them, but that you would have no problem assasinating them if you believed they were traitors. Neutral if often feauled by need. Since Power diminishes need, Neutral is often associated with power. An evil person would plan to betray his allies once they were no longer useful to him, while a Neutral would keep them because there was no great incentive not to.

Which brings me to the third point, Power can be gained from any alignment. If i raise an army, i could be doing it for any reason. It could be to enslave the world, it could be simply to survive and prosper(neutral), or it could be to vanquish an evil foe or protect the innocent. All three give great power, not just Evil. Power often motivates Evil, but does not cause it.

Also, good does exist without evil, just as light exists without shadow. If i take eight lights and place them around myself, I have no shadow. Darkness is the Absense of light, not the balance. Evil is the absense of Good, and vice-versa. But a child can understand what a good deed is even if he has never seen a bad one.

As for clerics and witches and wizards and mages. A Wizard is a spellcaster who draws magic and power from himself, while a witch or a cleric draws it from a God or other higher being. Period. So what happens, is that while the Witch or Cleric will be strongerright off the bat because he is tapping power greater than himself, he will always be more powerful than a wizard or a mage. However, A wizard or a mage does not have a restriction on what they may do. Clerics and Witches must follow the rules and guidelines of the power that they tap, and many of them have spell restrictions and other potential dangers as well. For example, a witch who follows an evil power, might become ugly or decrepid, as well as possible physical ailments, but they would, for the level they are at, be significantly stronger than a wizard or mage, who would have no such weaknesses. Clerics must do all in the name of good to maintain power. This means that they may not be allowed to steal or cast certain spells, which a wizard or mage would have free reign of.

[Shadoweagle]

There was a discussion about Evil without me!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Since I don't have time to read through it all at the moment, I'll just give a quick view on my thoughts on it, and read the post fully at a later date:

Good and Evil is manmade. Sentient biengs know of it because they create it. Wolves don't think each other evil for packs attacking each other - its simply territorial. Why should doves, or swans, be depicted as a 'good' image? Do they not feast upon insects? And what of the insects, then? Are they good or evil?

There is no such thing as good and evil. They are simply words to describe what actions are deemed acceptable or unacceptable by someones standards.

Im sure I've rambled on about this elsewhere in these forums.

[MoonHunter]

I vaguely remember seeing this post in ages past.  We had a similar conversation in another section of the site.  

http://www.rpgcitadel.com/guild/index.php?topic=416.0

My post in that thread....

Because it Eeeeevil

I have always placed the core of Evil as Selfishness, that the self is the only thing that is important and anything that required to meet the needs of the self is acceptable.

The drive for advancement at any cost is a drive to fufill their own need for a position or place. While Good allows for competition as long as that competition is not to the level of destroying the others in the competition, Evil emphasises success at any cost.

Cruelty is a biproduct of Evil. An uncaring for the suffering of others to achieve their goal is a perfectly Evil function. Delight in cruelty inflicted upon others or self, is acceptable because it is simply a fufillment of their own needs, therefore acceptable.

Weakness is simply something that gets in the way of achieving ones own goals. Anything that stops you from achieving goals in yourself is a weakness and is simply not compatable with your needs. Some who are evil have issues with others who are weak because they could be strong and they don't understand why anyone would not want to be strong and able to achieve their own goals.

Discipline may or may not be an aspect of Evil. It depends on the goals of the Evil being. Many Evils are into satisfying their own needs immediately, while others plan and plot to achieve more stratigic needs. A degree of discipline might be acceptable, depending on the Evil beings needs.

Combat. Combat is a simple tool to achieve an end. If you like to show that you are superior (have a need that must be satisfied) you will engage in it freqeuntly, to prove you are superior. If you enjoy watching the weak squirm, combat is a great way to fufill that need. Combat is not Evil, it is just the easiest tool at their disposal.

This selfishness is the reason why Evil is Negative. Unlike Good which projects outward, giving to all, Evil draws thing in... absorbing everything in a point of self.

[CaptainPenguin]

If you are Good, then your actions are motivated by a desire to help others. If you are Evil, then your actions are motivated by a desire to hurt others.

That's almost certainly an oversimplification. I don't have any evidence right now, but just you wait...

I see the root of Evil as fear. Fear causes people to do many things.
For instance, an obvious example is Hitler. He was evil because he feared the Jews, making him a racist.
Not so obvious is, say, someone who lusts for power. They seek power in order to have more control over their lives, which, in its roots, is a search for protection, springing from the fear of death. (I fear death > I need protection > If I control my life, I am safe > I need power to control my life > I must have more power > I will rule the world, MUAHAHAHAHAHAHA!)

[Magus]

"By what means do you classify evil? Are you evil because you kill? Or, because you realise that killing is evil, does that in turn make you good? Perhaps death, is the only real evil left. But let me tell you, i have never seen a vision, or heard a secret, that could d**n, or save, my soul."
                                                             -Armond

[manfred]

(Let me react first on a few things...)

Nobody:
The problem with intent is, that a good intent does not necessarily create anything Good. Indeed, some of the greatest Evils come from good intentions, and could have such terrible effects because of this.

Does the end justify the means? I am not so sure...


As for that Neutral thing (there was another hot debate on it already), what you mentioned was Evil, as far I can discern it: the Selfishness mentioned by MoonHunter is ingrained in "not caring if the actions are right or wrong, so long as they serve the purpose".

An evil person would plan to betray his allies once they were no longer useful to him...

...sounds to me more like a mad person. Freely disposing of former allies, IF it serves other purposes, is surely a trade-mark of Evil. But any smarter villain will know how useful trusted henchmen are.

(Of course, as the Evil Overlord list teaches us: I will classify my lieutenants in three categories: untrusted, trusted, and completely trusted. Promotion to the third category will be awarded posthumously. )

Which brings me to the third point, Power can be gained from any alignment. If i raise an army, i could be doing it for any reason. It could be to enslave the world, it could be simply to survive and prosper(neutral), or it could be to vanquish an evil foe or protect the innocent. All three give great power, not just Evil. Power often motivates Evil, but does not cause it.

Yeah... sort of. To have an army in an unstable world is of course a question of reason, not morals. What you actually do with that army, can be Good and Evil, and often mixed.

So in the end, it is not only WHY you do something, but also WHAT you do.


Shadoweagle:
"Good and Evil is manmade" - I take that, if a bit in other words. It is true that Good and Evil are _human_ terms, so you can't really attach these stickers on animal behaviour (even if we daily do).

(And besides, in a fantasy world, it may be elf-made, or dwarf-made, depending on the history. )

[manfred]

(Let me try it now from a different angle... )


We are social creatures. Not only are, we MUST be social, in order to survive from the longer point of view. Good and Evil could be thus interpreted as what helps and harms our social being. (Again the Robinson Crusoe thing: can you be Evil if alone?)

This can be easily separated: if we take only one group/tribe/nation into account, what helps and harms is the groups Good and Evil, so to say. To take Captain's silly example, Monkeylanders that dance under the moonlight are a threat to the Crocodilians social integrity, thus will be marked as Evil.


That was a kind of "relative" Good and Evil, if such a thing exists. How to approach the "absolute" Good and Evil, something people should really strive for? Perhaps it is the social being (and in the end survival) of all members of the race. Let us ignore for the moment all complications that arise, if we have several different fantasy races at hand.

Should the Crocodilians learn to dance under the moonlight, to make them better people (nice dance=less stress, etc), or should the Monkeylanders forget it for their own good, since it destroys their morals, their health, or something? Or shall they learn to accept their differences? Or is there a special reason, why Crocodilians don't dance at nights? (stray undead, cold nights & the flu, hot nights & mosquitos, a curse, promise to a god, ???)

I can't work out, what is proper and better for everone (or maybe this "global" point of view is unusable...), but this could be it: Good is what enables our race to survive in the long turn. In the short turn, it means simply not destroying our society. In the long turn then, making it grow and adapt.


But if there are multiple distinctive races, what would be the ultimate Good? If we consider them all a part of the same ecosystem, something like a peaceful coexistence, not endangering anyone to extinction.

---

But once a _different_ race from another planet arrives, all this turns again on its head. What is right then?


I can imagine a different kind of nationalism, in a larger scale: it is a whole planet, and its ecosystem, that is to be loved and protected. And more could be done: since it is their ecosystem that is superior to any other, they would naturally try to transplant it elsewhere. Thus the friendly Ximbarans arrive, trade with us, research our ecosystem, and "forget" a few well-picked plants, that spread, and spread...