CE is the ultimate expression of ego. Nothing exists beyond personal gratification. It's fun to me, because it is so contrary to my real-life nature. It's a lot more challenging (imho) to play an evil party (especially in BG2).
I think it's interesting that, among the three alignment tendency polls I posted, this one has received the most views (currently, an appropriate 666!) as well as the most comments.
For those who both play and identify as Evil, I ask the obverse: could the forces of Evil continue to maintain a sense of what Evilness entails without the "constant, puritanical meddling" of Good (e.g., the Lower Planes destroying the Upper Planes)?
I tend to think Good needs the existence of Evil, but Evil doesn't need the existence of Good.
Loaded question. I think that both are sides of the same coin and they need each other. How would we know Good, if there was no Evil to compare it to? How would we know Evil if there was no Good?
One thing I noticed, if indeed there is any statistical significance to the response and view number spreads, is that adding the good to the neutral makes them very close to equaling 50-50 with evil.
So, maybe "good" people are actually split with neutrality. "Evil flourishes when good men do nothing."
You ask a really interesting question about the nature of good and evil as far as needing each other. That's actually a question that comes up a lot in philosophy, religion, and in culture, art, film, and literature with philosophical or religious themes.
I'll look forward to reading people's answers to that. My own opinion about it is that existence arises out of the struggle between them, almost like sexual reproduction between an archetypal male and an archetypal female, and thus, they each must have the other in order to go on existing. The perfect symbol for the idea I'm trying to get at here is the Taoist Yin and Yang symbol.
I think it's interesting that, among the three alignment tendency polls I posted, this one has received the most views (currently, an appropriate 666!) as well as the most comments.
For those who both play and identify as Evil, I ask the obverse: could the forces of Evil continue to maintain a sense of what Evilness entails without the "constant, puritanical meddling" of Good (e.g., the Lower Planes destroying the Upper Planes)?
I tend to think Good needs the existence of Evil, but Evil doesn't need the existence of Good.
Loaded question. I think that both are sides of the same coin and they need each other. How would we know Good, if there was no Evil to compare it to? How would we know Evil if there was no Good?
Dark Helmet lives!
@Southpaw One alternative to the Good/Evil dialectic is to define Evil as the absence of, instead of the counterbalance to, Good, much like disease is the absence of health, not its opposite. This strategy is often used to address the "Problem of Evil" in academic philosophy (i.e., how could an all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good god allow evil to exist?). I think the argument has, for the most part, become a moot point.
Since we're talking about Eastern Religion, @belgarathmth, some schools of Hinduism and Buddhism hold that evil is an illusion (as are suffering and disease). In Taoism (particularly, the Book of Changes), the Ying/Yang symbol is not a depiction of good and evil, but rather giving and taking. Their harmony is what is considered good, and their struggle, evil.
Forbidden fruits are sweetest, after all. For example, Viconia is usually said to be the most attractive and alluring (and with the best romance) among the female NPCs in BG2, yet she is evil (to the chagrin of many).
Yes, well.. speaking only for myself, the main allure with that is that she's capable of being turned around and made to "see the error of her ways", as it were. This serves both to give her a sense of development and depth, and provides a satisfying turn of events for good-aligned characters, along the "I know there's good in you" line of thinking.
Also, I feel she just happens to be quite well written in comparison to the other two female romance options, Aerie especially, both in terms of maturity and complexity.
I tend to think Good needs the existence of Evil, but Evil doesn't need the existence of Good.
I wouldn't go as far as that. I'd agree that good may need evil in the narrative sense, to create story and tension (which would be hard to find if everyone was polite, good-natured and reasonable); but not in terms of just existing. Pretty much by definition, a good character is likely to be at peace in a good world, (more or less) happily locking up his weapons and armour once evil is vanquished and the world at rest.
Such a world would (if pushed to the ultimate end of the 'good' spectrum) be in a state of eternal peace, whereas the evil version of such a world (similarly not in need of a good counterpoint) would either be in constant conflict, or have order imposed on it by someone strong enough to keep everyone else in line. And then conflict would only be averted as long as no one saw an opportunity to usurp power.
@Shin - I think the argument is that without it's opposite, how do you know what good is? You say that you think a solo person might be 'At peace in a good world', but without the concept of 'Evil' would they call it a 'Good' world? If you don't have anything to compare against, how do you set guidelines?
Clearly you believe that eternal peace is the definition of good, yet a man can peacefully and contently refuse to stand up against evil, thus causing harm and even death to others. Is this peace or selfish and self serving ignorance?
I can't play evil. I've tried choosing to be an evil alignment, but my playstyle turns out to be good every single time. And if I constantly try and make myself choose "Evil" choices, the game isn't fun for me any more. It's as if by making myself make the choice, I am removed from the game, and it's as fun as taking a test.
@LadyRhian - I find some of that in my play-through as well. I put it down more to the fact that a lot of the choices in the game are either 'The good choice' or 'The bratty, immature choice'. I don't think that all 'Evil' is simply about how jerkish you can respond to someone. In fact, I find that even really 'Good' people are sometimes jerks.
Choosing the chaotic stupid dialogue options isn't mandatory, though. I'm currently re-playing NWN2 with a LE character, and he is generally nice to most people.
I used to have issues playing an evil character in RPGs as well, until I realized I didn't have to play complete self-inserts to have fun. Actual roleplay makes for more creativity, which in the end is just as rewarding for me. It is a way to appropriate myself the story, which I may not find when reading a book.
@Shin - I think the argument is that without it's opposite, how do you know what good is? You say that you think a solo person might be 'At peace in a good world', but without the concept of 'Evil' would they call it a 'Good' world? If you don't have anything to compare against, how do you set guidelines?
Well, it's a theoretical construct. The inhabitants of such a world may not consider it or themselves 'good' if it's been all they've known, but for them to do so would just be a label. They still are like they are. You don't have to be conscious of being 'good as opposed to evil' in order to act kindly and empathically.
Clearly you believe that eternal peace is the definition of good, yet a man can peacefully and contently refuse to stand up against evil, thus causing harm and even death to others. Is this peace or selfish and self serving ignorance?
Not the definition of good, more like an outcome of a world where everyone was good. You can have peace in an evil world too like I mentioned, but it would be a lot more fragile.
@Shin - I think the argument is that without it's opposite, how do you know what good is? You say that you think a solo person might be 'At peace in a good world', but without the concept of 'Evil' would they call it a 'Good' world? If you don't have anything to compare against, how do you set guidelines?
Well, it's a theoretical construct. The inhabitants of such a world may not consider it or themselves 'good' if it's been all they've known, but for them to do so would just be a label. They still are like they are. You don't have to be conscious of being 'good as opposed to evil' in order to act kindly and empathically.
Clearly you believe that eternal peace is the definition of good, yet a man can peacefully and contently refuse to stand up against evil, thus causing harm and even death to others. Is this peace or selfish and self serving ignorance?
Not the definition of good, more like an outcome of a world where everyone was good. You can have peace in an evil world too like I mentioned, but it would be a lot more fragile.
If there is no one for whom to be 'kindly and empathetic too', are they still good? If they are at peace merely because they never encountered anyone too be mean too, and therefore it simply never occurred to them, are they still good?
If an 'Evil' person in an otherwise populated world gets wisked away somewhere where they will never again be able to encounter another soul, nor be able in any way to harm or be cruel to another being, are they still evil?
In my view, unless there is a measure to gauge against and others to observe and interact with, good and evil probably act pretty much the same way.
If there is no one for whom to be 'kindly and empathetic too', are they still good?
I'd say so - you can still act kindly to someone else who happens to feel the same way. Or if you were alone in the world, as long as you would theoretically act that way to someone you met, you'd be good.
If they are at peace merely because they never encountered anyone too be mean too, and therefore it simply never occurred to them, are they still good?
That depends on their intentions. Would they desire to be helpful, or to be left alone, or for someone to do their bidding? I'd sooner put it the other way around. If they were good, they would remain good also in the face of evil.
If an 'Evil' person in an otherwise populated world gets wisked away somewhere where they will never again be able to encounter another soul, nor be able in any way to harm or be cruel to another being, are they still evil?
Assuming they still harboured the same intentions, yes. They'd still be evil, just not have anyone to interact it through.
In my view, unless there is a measure to gauge against and others to observe and interact with, good and evil probably act pretty much the same way.
I don't really see it that way. They may act the same way in a sense, but have different ambitions and feelings. Similarly, a glass of hot water and a glass of cold water may seem the same until you taste them. Then you might think 'would the water still have been hot if I hadn't interacted with it?' - but it's not like the water only becomes hot or cold the moment you decide to drink.
Ok, let me ask another question. Can you describe for me a pattern of behavior (or way of thinking if that is your definition) for a 'Good' person using only words or concepts that do not have opposites?
Presumably if there is a behavior pattern that is intrinsically good, that the opposite behavior would, by definition, be evil. or do you see it differently?
@the_spyder No, I mostly agree with that - it's just that I still think of good and evil as theoretical concepts even in a case where they don't have anyone representing them in an actual world.
Again, like temperature. Heat can be defined as a lot of molecular movement, and cold as a lack of molecular movement and the opposite of heat. If now you imagine a world where everything is very hot, you won't have much to compare it to, but I don't see how that makes the concept of cold go away.
@Shin - I too believe that Good and Evil are theoretical concepts. I am not quite a Zoroastrianist, but I get the concepts involved.
All I am saying (and it looks like we agree, though correct me if I am wrong), if such a thing as good exists, it's opposite must be evil. Therefore one can not exist without knowledge of the other. The possibility of one virtually defines the existence of the other.
@the_spyder As concepts, yes - I agree that the attributes of one may be roughly deduced from the opposite of the other, which may or may not be represented in reality. But I don't feel that an innately good creature will cease to be good without anything evil to compare it to, or the other way around.
@Shin - My view is that 'innately good' is a subjective term and is dependent on the existence of a Definition of Good which can't, by the definition we discussed above, exist without the concept of evil. This does not require an 'Evil Creature', but absolutely requires the definition of good and it's reciprocal.
Maybe we are agreeing and I am just not seeing it?
@the_spyder Well, it seems to turn into semantics, like saying a definition of strong can't exist without a definition of weak etc, as most adjectives have opposites in some form. I don't disagree with that.
My original point though was more along the lines that good creatures can exist and remain good and be good to each other even in the absence of someone evil showing up as a comparison and to remind them they're still good.
"Evil" is not so evil in Baldur's gate. To be honest we don't have so much choice in the game to choose between good and evil. As for me beeing evil does not mean carnage everywhere or choose an evil option in a dialog. Actually you can choose a good dialog option beeing a evil person to fool somebody. Pretend that you are a good and open minded person (like Montaron ), without charm spells and so on. You'll get the same effect. BUT every time I start a new game (every other game, not just BG) I keep in mind that good characters recive more benefits just for acting in a game "pattern". More Xp, better weapons or even additional game content. I agree here with @LadyRhian. This game pattern just force you to act good and make right decisions. It's just not profitable to "act" evil in BG (evil pretend to be profit). And it's not about your party and companions, I feel free to hire and communicate with evil alignet NPCs if I'm playing with a good character, some of them can change their alignment under your pressure Just like in real life. Still I prefer to play evil in every game as much as I can, but breaking the "pattern" just every time. I rob houses and kill people for goodies. But it's just not enough and I act good in some cases to take my bonus XP or goodies, let's say fooling people. Speaking of alignment I really don't understang beeing lawful. Maybe the game description is not enough here. I voted for NE because it's just easier for me. I don't understand do you really can break into a house and rob some farmers if you you are LE? Or backstab this faggot bard on the bridge in Firewine loc beeing LE? Let's see, who is NE in the game. Eldoth? Well, thats me Compared to Viconia who's also NE - completely different character types IMO. And Montaron? I always thought he is more chaotic... In other words I like backstabbing people just for their items, I like robbing houses, I don't care for the Flaming Fist, I piss of Khalid, Edwin and Alora, but I like Jaheira, Imoen and use Ajantis because of his abilities (let's say I respect the paladin class lol), I even like Saverok and I don't understang why should I kill him (c'mon brother Savy I can be your best friend, I know you did a huge mistake killing Gorion, you were brainwashed, give me Tamoko in return as a personal slave and we're even lol), I belive we can reach an agreement on some points and united we can clean out all this bhaalspawn junk (I do it every time in TOB). Well, have I made the right choice in this poll?
And one more thing about the "heroic pattern". @Mortianna I guess you know who's Riddick from the Pitch Black movie, what do you think is he neutral or evil alignet? Why am I asking this... Because IMO he's more NE and he is a great example how NE characters still can be heroic. And I really don't have any examples for LE and CE heroic characters...
Interesting discussion! I think you've revealed the underlying problems with absolute notions of morality. I'm much more of Nietzschean when it comes to this issue. Nietzsche argues that the good/evil binary is the morality of slaves, as they need clearly defined rules and conventions to which they can conform. They advocated weakness and turned it into a moral value, expecting everyone to abide by it (seeing themselves as "good"). The Abrahamic religions are the embodiment of slave morality for Nietzsche, as they pronounce moral judgments upon and condemn those who refuse to submit to their moral system. Since slave morality has been imposed upon everyone (he was talking about Europe), and because it favors the lowest common denominator and the eradication of differences, strong individuals are inhibited from breaking out of it and creating new values that might save society (again, Europe) from nihilism.
Master morality, rather, looks at the world in terms of good and bad (rather than evil) according to one's own perspective. It requires that one determine for oneself what is good or bad, since situations and conditions change. Master morality, then, is active (and creative), while slave morality is reactive (leading to stagnation). Since they're often found together in a given society and within individuals, this reveals why morality is often quite contradictory.
In short, I think that contradiction helps explain why many of us find favor in characters defined as "evil" and have contempt for those who are "good" in the D&D world.
@Mortianna you are a very smart evil girl I see it that way - for many people evil characters seem to be more independent, but many people do not realize the consequences for such kind of "freedom", it seems that they don't have so closed scope of behavior like good people following morality and society laws. "Evil" is not "Free", and in the same time it is not "Bad". The main character in the "fathers and sons" by Turgenev Eugeny Bazarov was a example to follow for the youth back then in the 19th cent. Because of his cynicism, nihilism and usual lifestyle denial. Some critics found him evil...
My original point though was more along the lines that good creatures can exist and remain good and be good to each other even in the absence of someone evil showing up as a comparison and to remind them they're still good.
We don't disagree on this point. Where I think we might differ is that if you define evil as being bad to others, in the absence of those others, how do you know that you are good? Having never been tempted to strike someone, never been provoked in that manner, how do you know you won't until that happens? Or to put it another way, if there is no one else to have stuff for you to covet, how do you know you won't covet that stuff should it ever present itself?
All of the above is not to say that temptation need exist to prove goodness, but that until temptation exists, how do you define good and evil?
@Mornmagor - you don't need to be lawful to have a code of conduct.
Harvey Dent (Two-Face) has a code of conduct in that he will flip a coin to determine what actions he will take. He is quite fanatical about adhering to that code and the outcome yet he is clearly as chaotic as they come.
So you are good to simply play neutral evil and still have that inner monologue telling you what to do.
@Mortianna - I have never read any Nietzsche (other than in passing during one Philosophy class in college), yet I find what you wrote fascinating. My personal take on the whole thing isn't that good and evil are the shackles religion uses on people, but that the religions themselves are the shackles. I have long believed that religion was propagated mainly as a means of control and was sold as a way to praise ourselves and punish our enemies (believe as I do and you go to Heaven, nirvana, etc... Stand against me and go to Hades or the like), and that these positions are 'Called' good and evil merely to give them name and weight.
Further, so long as people have something to feel good about, and something to fight against their neighbors over, that distracts them from the people on the top of the food chain and what they have going on behind their backs. Maybe that is cynical of me, but there is actual precedent to support this position.
Comments
Loaded question. I think that both are sides of the same coin and they need each other.
How would we know Good, if there was no Evil to compare it to? How would we know Evil if there was no Good?
So, maybe "good" people are actually split with neutrality. "Evil flourishes when good men do nothing."
You ask a really interesting question about the nature of good and evil as far as needing each other. That's actually a question that comes up a lot in philosophy, religion, and in culture, art, film, and literature with philosophical or religious themes.
I'll look forward to reading people's answers to that. My own opinion about it is that existence arises out of the struggle between them, almost like sexual reproduction between an archetypal male and an archetypal female, and thus, they each must have the other in order to go on existing. The perfect symbol for the idea I'm trying to get at here is the Taoist Yin and Yang symbol.
@Southpaw One alternative to the Good/Evil dialectic is to define Evil as the absence of, instead of the counterbalance to, Good, much like disease is the absence of health, not its opposite. This strategy is often used to address the "Problem of Evil" in academic philosophy (i.e., how could an all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good god allow evil to exist?). I think the argument has, for the most part, become a moot point.
Since we're talking about Eastern Religion, @belgarathmth, some schools of Hinduism and Buddhism hold that evil is an illusion (as are suffering and disease). In Taoism (particularly, the Book of Changes), the Ying/Yang symbol is not a depiction of good and evil, but rather giving and taking. Their harmony is what is considered good, and their struggle, evil.
Also, I feel she just happens to be quite well written in comparison to the other two female romance options, Aerie especially, both in terms of maturity and complexity. I wouldn't go as far as that. I'd agree that good may need evil in the narrative sense, to create story and tension (which would be hard to find if everyone was polite, good-natured and reasonable); but not in terms of just existing. Pretty much by definition, a good character is likely to be at peace in a good world, (more or less) happily locking up his weapons and armour once evil is vanquished and the world at rest.
Such a world would (if pushed to the ultimate end of the 'good' spectrum) be in a state of eternal peace, whereas the evil version of such a world (similarly not in need of a good counterpoint) would either be in constant conflict, or have order imposed on it by someone strong enough to keep everyone else in line. And then conflict would only be averted as long as no one saw an opportunity to usurp power.
Clearly you believe that eternal peace is the definition of good, yet a man can peacefully and contently refuse to stand up against evil, thus causing harm and even death to others. Is this peace or selfish and self serving ignorance?
I used to have issues playing an evil character in RPGs as well, until I realized I didn't have to play complete self-inserts to have fun. Actual roleplay makes for more creativity, which in the end is just as rewarding for me. It is a way to appropriate myself the story, which I may not find when reading a book.
If an 'Evil' person in an otherwise populated world gets wisked away somewhere where they will never again be able to encounter another soul, nor be able in any way to harm or be cruel to another being, are they still evil?
In my view, unless there is a measure to gauge against and others to observe and interact with, good and evil probably act pretty much the same way.
Presumably if there is a behavior pattern that is intrinsically good, that the opposite behavior would, by definition, be evil. or do you see it differently?
Again, like temperature. Heat can be defined as a lot of molecular movement, and cold as a lack of molecular movement and the opposite of heat. If now you imagine a world where everything is very hot, you won't have much to compare it to, but I don't see how that makes the concept of cold go away.
All I am saying (and it looks like we agree, though correct me if I am wrong), if such a thing as good exists, it's opposite must be evil. Therefore one can not exist without knowledge of the other. The possibility of one virtually defines the existence of the other.
Maybe we are agreeing and I am just not seeing it?
My original point though was more along the lines that good creatures can exist and remain good and be good to each other even in the absence of someone evil showing up as a comparison and to remind them they're still good.
BUT every time I start a new game (every other game, not just BG) I keep in mind that good characters recive more benefits just for acting in a game "pattern". More Xp, better weapons or even additional game content. I agree here with @LadyRhian. This game pattern just force you to act good and make right decisions.
It's just not profitable to "act" evil in BG (evil pretend to be profit). And it's not about your party and companions, I feel free to hire and communicate with evil alignet NPCs if I'm playing with a good character, some of them can change their alignment under your pressure
Still I prefer to play evil in every game as much as I can, but breaking the "pattern" just every time. I rob houses and kill people for goodies. But it's just not enough and I act good in some cases to take my bonus XP or goodies, let's say fooling people.
Speaking of alignment I really don't understang beeing lawful. Maybe the game description is not enough here. I voted for NE because it's just easier for me. I don't understand do you really can break into a house and rob some farmers if you you are LE? Or backstab this faggot bard on the bridge in Firewine loc beeing LE? Let's see, who is NE in the game. Eldoth? Well, thats me
In other words I like backstabbing people just for their items, I like robbing houses, I don't care for the Flaming Fist, I piss of Khalid, Edwin and Alora, but I like Jaheira, Imoen and use Ajantis because of his abilities (let's say I respect the paladin class lol), I even like Saverok and I don't understang why should I kill him (c'mon brother Savy I can be your best friend, I know you did a huge mistake killing Gorion, you were brainwashed, give me Tamoko in return as a personal slave and we're even lol), I belive we can reach an agreement on some points and united we can clean out all this bhaalspawn junk (I do it every time in TOB).
Well, have I made the right choice in this poll?
And one more thing about the "heroic pattern". @Mortianna I guess you know who's Riddick from the Pitch Black movie, what do you think is he neutral or evil alignet? Why am I asking this... Because IMO he's more NE and he is a great example how NE characters still can be heroic. And I really don't have any examples for LE and CE heroic characters...
Interesting discussion! I think you've revealed the underlying problems with absolute notions of morality. I'm much more of Nietzschean when it comes to this issue. Nietzsche argues that the good/evil binary is the morality of slaves, as they need clearly defined rules and conventions to which they can conform. They advocated weakness and turned it into a moral value, expecting everyone to abide by it (seeing themselves as "good"). The Abrahamic religions are the embodiment of slave morality for Nietzsche, as they pronounce moral judgments upon and condemn those who refuse to submit to their moral system. Since slave morality has been imposed upon everyone (he was talking about Europe), and because it favors the lowest common denominator and the eradication of differences, strong individuals are inhibited from breaking out of it and creating new values that might save society (again, Europe) from nihilism.
Master morality, rather, looks at the world in terms of good and bad (rather than evil) according to one's own perspective. It requires that one determine for oneself what is good or bad, since situations and conditions change. Master morality, then, is active (and creative), while slave morality is reactive (leading to stagnation). Since they're often found together in a given society and within individuals, this reveals why morality is often quite contradictory.
In short, I think that contradiction helps explain why many of us find favor in characters defined as "evil" and have contempt for those who are "good" in the D&D world.
I see it that way - for many people evil characters seem to be more independent, but many people do not realize the consequences for such kind of "freedom", it seems that they don't have so closed scope of behavior like good people following morality and society laws. "Evil" is not "Free", and in the same time it is not "Bad".
The main character in the "fathers and sons" by Turgenev Eugeny Bazarov was a example to follow for the youth back then in the 19th cent. Because of his cynicism, nihilism and usual lifestyle denial. Some critics found him evil...
But what about me and Riddick?
All of the above is not to say that temptation need exist to prove goodness, but that until temptation exists, how do you define good and evil?
Well, because of SOME moral code being inside and all. When it's convenient ;p
Or some grand plan, etc ;p
Harvey Dent (Two-Face) has a code of conduct in that he will flip a coin to determine what actions he will take. He is quite fanatical about adhering to that code and the outcome yet he is clearly as chaotic as they come.
So you are good to simply play neutral evil and still have that inner monologue telling you what to do.
@Mortianna - I have never read any Nietzsche (other than in passing during one Philosophy class in college), yet I find what you wrote fascinating. My personal take on the whole thing isn't that good and evil are the shackles religion uses on people, but that the religions themselves are the shackles. I have long believed that religion was propagated mainly as a means of control and was sold as a way to praise ourselves and punish our enemies (believe as I do and you go to Heaven, nirvana, etc... Stand against me and go to Hades or the like), and that these positions are 'Called' good and evil merely to give them name and weight.
Further, so long as people have something to feel good about, and something to fight against their neighbors over, that distracts them from the people on the top of the food chain and what they have going on behind their backs. Maybe that is cynical of me, but there is actual precedent to support this position.