It worries me how much attention good and evil are getting ever since humankind claimed them. Much ado about nothing, really, as one British playwright wrote.
You know, I annihilated a lot of people. I did. Tons of them. If you read any book making references to me (the Epic of Gilgamesh or Torah might not be the most reliable of sources, though), you'd be fully aware that I committed things that no human "wrongdoer" would ever be able to imagine, let alone execute. How many of you would call me evil? How many of you would not understand me? How many of you would denounce me, kick me out of my own temple along with my partnering Goddess, and say "we'll be praying to Ba'al now, he's the good one!" It happened once, see. Once a human king claimed he knew good and evil better than I. And that's exactly why you have to live in a horrifying, contaminated, overpopulated world where each sunrise is welcomed by more tears than smiles. And yet you continue to praise good and evil, your favourite false gods.
Good and Evil are better measured through intentions, rather than actions.
It's obviously make-believe, or fabricated values, as with a lot of other things, but in D&D, it's a way to measure your intent towards others.
Do you respect life? Do you achieve your goal through whatever means? Do you wish to help people? Help them get stronger, or just help them so that they always need you? Does your evil do good, and your good do evil instead?
Is it about you, or others?
Usually Evil is about oneself, with disregard to everyone else. Good is more about altruism and self sacrifice. But in the end, do i help others because i like to see them smile? Or to make something that i prefer better? Maybe i'm just selfish and want to see everyone smile because of me, so i feel better about myself. It's not shameful to understand the selfish nature of humans.
And of course, you can look at it another way as well. There is no such thing as good and evil. There is only good for example, or a set of sociology rules that have proven to make people happier and more productive as part of a group. Absence of that, makes people unhappy, and creates room for "evil" and unhappiness.
In the same sense of "duality fail". Like, there is no light and darkness. There is only light, and absence of it, aka darkness. There are only particles of light, photons. In the same way, there is no heat and cold. There is only fast movement of molecules, aka high kinetic energy, aka heat, or absence of it, and cold as a result.
So, there is only Good, not Evil.
Or is it the other way around...? Aahahaha! o_O
No drinking for the rest of the night >_>
In general, for real life, i think, these values coexist in everyone as tendencies, like the yin-yang symbol that my friend @belgarathmth posted earlier in the thread.
In BG though, LE or NE for the win! (NE is also desirable when being a Berserker/Mage, i'll have a blast with that one in BG2:EE )
I also want to share with you, while i'm still drunk, that i feel that someone (like God?) is watching me, using my human-centric logic trying to reason with the laws of the universe and existence/Good vs Evil while drinking, and is having a blast laughing at my expense ;P
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 agree with you here that it's may be the opportunity to redeem Viconia, along with her well-written romance, that appeals to many players, rather than the fact she's evil.
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.
"Eternal peace" is a utopian idea that traditional (today, more like fundamentalist) Christianity and Islam espouse--through the conversion or obliteration of non-believers/infidels/sinners. "Peace," therefore, is when one no longer has enemies to conquer. But can the process by which such an end is achieved be "good?"
Even in the D&D world, there are good nations that go to war with other good nations (LG imposing order upon CG, or CG revolting against the encroaching kingdom of a LG king). Therefore, I don't see how the triumph of "good" would necessarily lead to a world without conflict as long as the Lawful/Chaotic axis exists.
[...] 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...
@DarkDogg I think Lawful Evil is one of the most misunderstood alignments, and is more difficult to roleplay in BG. This is one of the reasons why I enjoy playing it so much. I agree with you that the evil options seem more suited for NE and CE characters. Being an "honorable and disciplined, yet evil" character involves requires choosing what might seem as contradictory courses of action. For example, when doing Silke's quest, LE characters would most likely follow through with their agreement to "protect" Silke from Feldepost's "thugs," even if it was obvious she was lying. You made an agreement, after all, and a deal is a deal. Once the "contract" is over, however, you owe her no allegiance; you might even feel justified in punishing her for manipulating you. It's too bad there's not an option for you to confront her, demanding that she join your party and serve in recompense instead of killing her.
A good example of justifying thievery and other law-breaking activities from a LE perspective would be a LE thieves' guild. They would have a code of conduct to which all guild members must adhere, such as not robbing houses in a wealthy district, since the residents pay regular extortion fees to the guild for protection. Similarly, a LE assassin's guild would have strict rules about who may be assassinated (e.g., only via contract killings approved by the guild hierarchy and delegated to specific guild members). Stiff punishments would be meted out to those who freelance or members who kill without prior authorization.
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...
It's been a long time since I've seen that movie (which I really enjoyed). I'd say he's Chaotic Neutral with Evil tendencies. He kills only those he feels have wronged him in some way (which, admittedly, is pretty subjective), and is out for himself, pure and simple. Riddick has no desire to be a part of the "civilized" world; he just wants to be left alone, and will deal ruthlessly with anyone who gets in the way.
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?
I'd say that in such a case you wouldn't necessarily know you were good, or evil. I don't see how that plays into it though: you don't need to be aware of your own alignment in order to act according to it when you end up in a position of interaction.
I also don't see how it messes up the definition. I would look at it a bit like if you were put either a black or a white ball in a box and hand the box to me. I can't tell which ball is in the box until I open it, but once I do the ball will be the same one that you put there to start with - my opening won't alter it.
@God, are You f-ing kidding me? Of course You are. You are, without a doubt, the most perfect representation of chaotic evil that could be known by human beings. You are a total a-h*l*. I absolutely denounce You without reservation, and would gleefully kick You out of Your own temple. (edit: Oh yeah, and Your little Goddess, too!)
The thing is, the Universe is chaotic evil. Since You *are* the Universe, You are of course, chaotic evil.
We human beings are capable of something better than You. We *are* better than You. We have all the potential, and You just keep not existing there in all Your absolutely passive, uncaring, chaotic evil glory.
You wanna throw floods and meteors at us? Go ahead, knock Yourself out. I betcha we'll survive it. We're like that. You had to rewrite Your whole archetypal "Ooo, look at Me, I'm gonna wipe you all out with a flood" story after we survived it (nyah, nyah!), to include cute fuzzy animals and rainbows. We keep making You do that. Come on, admit it. You secretly *like* cute fuzzy animals and rainbows.
Heck, You even are planning to make our Sun explode in a couple billion years or so. I'll see You a supernova, and raise You a space-faring civilization that evolves *despite* You.
What's really kind of hilarious to poor little me, who can totally be smited by big, bad, You, is that, since we humans *rise again* from You, again, and again, and again, we totally influence You and develop You and create *YOU*, just as much as You think You create *us*.
I hate You for the source of all human Evil that You are, not to mention as the chaotic evil author of a cold, uncaring, random, and truly horrible Universe.
You are hateful, spiteful, horrible, awful, loving, kind, empathetic, caring, wonderful, and awesome.
And, I thank You, profoundly and deeply, from the bottom of my Soul, for giving me the joy of Life, and of knowing You in all Your chaotic lawful good evilness. :>0
"Eternal peace" is a utopian idea that traditional (today, more like fundamentalist) Christianity and Islam espouse--through the conversion or obliteration of non-believers/infidels/sinners. "Peace," therefore, is when one no longer has enemies to conquer. But can the process by which such an end is achieved be "good?"
Isn't it utopian because the idea of all beings (certainly all humans) being good is utopian to begin with though? I would say 'peace' would be an absence of conflict and hostility, and in a theoretical world where everyone was purely good it seems to stand to reason that there wouldn't be any conflicts.
Whether the process to achieve a world where everyone is either good or pacified can be considered good in itself would depend a lot on the situation, stakes and the range of alignments involved, I guess. But in most cases, probably not.
Even in the D&D world, there are good nations that go to war with other good nations (LG imposing order upon CG, or CG revolting against the encroaching kingdom of a LG king). Therefore, I don't see how the triumph of "good" would necessarily lead to a world without conflict as long as the Lawful/Chaotic axis exists.
I think this one, much like the dilemmas that can face the so-called lawful stupid paladin, would depend on how good they were in comparison to how strongly they felt about order/chaos. The D&D world is made up by nations led by individuals though, who may not always be that true to the alignment they represent, or represent it to its fullest extent if they are. The Upper Planes are also divided into planes of LG, NG and CG alignments, but their inhabitants don't end up in a blood war about it like their evil counterparts.
The closest down-to-earth D&D example I can think of would be a world full of Minscs and Aeries. There may be some disagreements, but no Minsc or Aerie would ever raise their hand against someone they felt were as noble, good and honest as any Minsc or Aerie would always be.
@mortianna: no, I think both Machiavellianism and narcissism fit under neutral evill, and you don't necessarily have to have a psychological condition to be evil, but most are probably at least a little off.
The first two where philosophers, not psychologists. Chaotic evil is more those that are inconsiderate of things.
Aerie <--- Victim sited. Heading in. Then there's that wall of massive blamming thickness.
Gods in the Judao source tend to go in the neutral category. "God: Go to hell. Devil: I'm already there." Regarding chance distribution of responses (666 count poll), unless the site editors had a dull effort at contribution. It's like a coupling grouping.
999 ----- 666
Hey, if we put these together, we could have a party.
Then we can have a dragon eating it's own tail, and a sprite dancing on it, and a gnoll swinging over it.
Now that we have all these evil people together now, can we finally kill al the elves, or are you all just weanies trying to shirk out of things?
Neutral Evil. Selfish with little regard for most other people. Easy to understand and play I think.
Lawful Evil for Blackguard/other dark knightly types though. I follow certain rules to the letter while generally being viewed as "evil" by society at large.
LE is what I've played probably the most, but the most fun I ever had playing evil was a short PNP game when I was playing an amazingly charismatic and intelligent (rolled near the racial maximum for both) goblin shaman who had big, big plans, and he was probably NE (the D&D variant for that game didn't include the original alignment system).
I'd play evil more often in computer games but unfortunately it usually feels half-done, cuts you out of much of the content, and is more about puppy-kicking than anything I can really sink my teeth into story-wise.
I'd play evil more often in computer games but unfortunately it usually feels half-done, cuts you out of much of the content, and is more about puppy-kicking than anything I can really sink my teeth into story-wise.
Usually it's just douche evil with no or few options for smart evil I feel. And yes, it does tend to cut you out of content (Juhani in KotOR especially comes to mind) or worthwhile rewards; or just makes the game tediously much harder. The D&D CRPGs aren't generally as bad at it as others though thankfully.
Yes, the fact there are at least some interesting evil-aligned NPCs (more so in 1 than 2) makes Baldur's Gate better than most out there. It's still hard to realistically try to play evil, though (for one, just playing the game tends to make the evil characters want to leave the party).
I'd play evil more often in computer games but unfortunately it usually feels half-done, cuts you out of much of the content, and is more about puppy-kicking than anything I can really sink my teeth into story-wise.
Usually it's just douche evil with no or few options for smart evil I feel. And yes, it does tend to cut you out of content (Juhani in KotOR especially comes to mind) or worthwhile rewards; or just makes the game tediously much harder. The D&D CRPGs aren't generally as bad at it as others though thankfully.
Speaking of... does anyone know of a CRPG where you get to play smart evil instead of puppy kicking evil? As far as I am aware PST is the only CRPG ever made with such an option (and that is based on hearsay)
Jade Empire and KOTOR II at least have a fair number of smart evil options, even though there's a lot of puppy-kicking in there too. I've heard the Witcher is good for that (though more in the sense of "not knowing the right answer" rather than "deliberately picking the wrong answer"), but I haven't played much past the tutorial of that or its sequel so that's second-hand information.
Edit: Oh, how could I have forgotten? V:TM - Bloodlines is probably the best RPG ever for this. I'd go so far as to say "smart evil" is its intended default playstyle, with "goody goody", "stupid evil", and "one of the character types is literally insane and all their dialogue is completely different" as well-supported alternatives.
Jade Empire and KOTOR II at least have a fair number of smart evil options, even though there's a lot of puppy-kicking in there too.
IIRC it was 99% puppy kicking with 1% smart evil. If that. Smart evil isn't just about being crafty, its also about getting a worthwhile reward. And almost always doing evil is a selfless act of self sacrifice in the name of your morality (team EVULZ).
Jade empire in particular had outlined an impressive system that was NOT evil v good but rather "save people" vs "teach them to save themselves". Except the entire game, with few exception, closed fist has been traditional puppy kicking evil instead of teaching people how to help themselves.
The best way to describe evil in CRPGs is the ring quest in arcanum... A man drops a 20gp ring down a sewer manhole, there is a monster there so he can't get it. You go down and kill the monster and get the ring. Your options are: 1. Accept his reward for the ring, 300gp. (good act) 2. Murder him for the lulz and then sell the ring to a merchant for 20gp (evil act)
Nah, my memories of Jade Empire are vague but I've played KOTOR II recently enough to know smart evil does show up more often than that, not least of which because it's basically what your Wise Old Mentor tries very hard to convince you to do at all times. She'll even criticise you for being Stupid Evil as much as she will for being a selfless sap, and then you can philosophically debate with her about it!
Not a surprise, since Chris Avellone was the lead director, and he was also lead developer on Planescape: Torment. Pity KOTOR II wasn't finished properly, but it's still very good if you can look past that (and if you like the sort of moral murkiness it and PS:T revel in).
Nah, my memories of Jade Empire are vague but I've played KOTOR II recently enough to know smart evil does show up more often than that, not least of which because it's basically what your Wise Old Mentor tries very hard to convince you to do at all times. She'll even criticise you for being Stupid Evil as much as she will for being a selfless sap, and then you can philosophically debate with her about it!
Not a surprise, since Chris Avellone was the lead director, and he was also lead developer on Planescape: Torment. Pity KOTOR II wasn't finished properly, but it's still very good if you can look past that (and if you like the sort of moral murkiness it and PS:T revel in).
I guess I need to replay KOTOR as an evil character then BTW, what do you think of the various restoration projects?
I'm all for them in theory, but haven't actually played much of them yet. I played both KOTORs on console originally; I bought a PC copy of II just to play through it again with the biggest restoration mod but the computer I was playing it on died and took the save with it, and I put off restarting for the moment as it takes awhile to work up enthusiasm to go through Peragus and Telos again. I will say for as far as I got (most of the way through the first world) they worked fine, no obvious glitchiness.
It's also worth noting that at least Stupid Evil has some wonderfully hilarious moments in those games too. Like the guy guarding the door to the Exchange front corporation on Telos, whom you can kill when he won't let you in, and then kill a series of increasingly terrified/sobbing replacements every time you walk through that section of that station until they start begging for their lives and trying to show you pictures of their children on sight.
Edit: One other game occurs to me; in Morrowind there is actually quite a bit of smart evil you can do, and even be expected to do with certain factions (like the Telvanni). There's even a "smart evil" way to beat the game after breaking the main quest by, say, eating the soul of the god that's supposed to help you and using his soul to make a bitchin' magic sword (though finding that way is very tricky if you don't use a FAQ). It's very different in tone from the other Elder Scrolls games, and if you don't hate their open-world style then it may be worth checking out.
There's also the great fact that with a decent amount of conversation skills, you can legally rob anybody by taunting them into attacking you, after which you beat them to death in justifiable self-defence in full view of the guards and take all their stuff.
I picked Chaotic Evil, not because I think I'm particularly evil but based on my actions in-game it just doesn't make sense any other way.
You don't "just" kill an innocent or two in cold blood and shrug that off as "neutral" - you've picked a side and planted your flag. But how many of us can resist the lure of an NPC with loot? I know I've hunted my share of unsuspecting Drizzts, backstabbed quest givers after receiving a reward, and robbed the homes of starving farmers. It's not like I need the loot either; I can finish the game just as well without it. But I want it, and someone has to die for it. I'm sure I'm not the only one who's done this. And I suspect there are players out there who do similar things but think their behavior is neutral or even good, when we're all just as evil. Some of us are just more honest about it.
And why not? I know the rules of the game, I know there won't be any consequences, and I know if I murder someone all it takes is a little donation and the universe will not hold a grudge. Only I will know.
It's a scary thought. In the real world, I like to think I'm neutral at worst. But if I could see all the rules and consequences, and knew what I could get away with and what I couldn't and a brutally efficient path to get whatever I wanted, who's to say I wouldn't act the same way?
IIRC it was 99% puppy kicking with 1% smart evil. If that. Smart evil isn't just about being crafty, its also about getting a worthwhile reward. And almost always doing evil is a selfless act of self sacrifice in the name of your morality (team EVULZ).
Jade empire in particular had outlined an impressive system that was NOT evil v good but rather "save people" vs "teach them to save themselves". Except the entire game, with few exception, closed fist has been traditional puppy kicking evil instead of teaching people how to help themselves.
Interestingly, if they had followed through with the "teach them to save themselves" philosophy it would have totally been about "selfless acts of self-sacrifice in the name of your morality." Teaching people to help themselves doesn't get you anything in and of itself, and from an evil standpoint would probably be considered stupid; you are, after all, grooming people to become more powerful, which means they could be a rival or a credible enemy at some point in the future.
Instead it became a sort of hypocritical means of justifying your own acts of exploitation and evil. "My strength justifies itself and thereby justifies my actions; if you were stronger you could/would do the same (not that I'd let you become stronger)."
The way I see it truly Neutral Evil is the most evil evil. Evil without compromise, in most ways.
The way I see it, Neutral Evil is just being above all self-centered and reaching selfish goals thru any means necessary. Chaotic Evil is a bit worse, because that person is also even less reliable than NE and actually revels in spreading chaos and pain.
There's even a "smart evil" way to beat the game after breaking the main quest by, say, eating the soul of the god that's supposed to help you and using his soul to make a bitchin' magic sword
My brother enchanted a throwing star with his soul and threw it at an Ordinator. And missed. For some reason I found it hilarious.
The way I see it truly Neutral Evil is the most evil evil. Evil without compromise, in most ways.
The way I see it, Neutral Evil is just being above all self-centered and reaching selfish goals thru any means necessary. Chaotic Evil is a bit worse, because that person is also even less reliable than NE and actually revels in spreading chaos and pain.
But a chaotical evil character can be predictable. He's predictably chaotic, as it were, while a neutral evil character does whatever pleases him in whichever way pleases him.
Chaotic Evil (Insane for me) is fun to play and to write for. Playing evil in BG doesn't make sense since the game isn't really geared for it. But games like Fallout, my character will start out normal but as time progresses on the surface they turn insane and start doing evil deeds. In my Star Wars Kotor fanfic that I wrote, I had two twin sisters known as the Echani Twins. One would start a sentence the other would finish it. They were assassins who enjoyed killing, especially powerful individuals.
Comments
That post of yours really gave me a hard time having to choose between 'Insightful', 'Agree' and 'Like'
That first citation also mentions that the Marquis de Sade called religion an "opiate that you feed your people."
You know, I annihilated a lot of people. I did. Tons of them. If you read any book making references to me (the Epic of Gilgamesh or Torah might not be the most reliable of sources, though), you'd be fully aware that I committed things that no human "wrongdoer" would ever be able to imagine, let alone execute.
How many of you would call me evil? How many of you would not understand me? How many of you would denounce me, kick me out of my own temple along with my partnering Goddess, and say "we'll be praying to Ba'al now, he's the good one!"
It happened once, see. Once a human king claimed he knew good and evil better than I. And that's exactly why you have to live in a horrifying, contaminated, overpopulated world where each sunrise is welcomed by more tears than smiles. And yet you continue to praise good and evil, your favourite false gods.
Ahriman is a rather nice name, though.
It's obviously make-believe, or fabricated values, as with a lot of other things, but in D&D, it's a way to measure your intent towards others.
Do you respect life? Do you achieve your goal through whatever means? Do you wish to help people? Help them get stronger, or just help them so that they always need you? Does your evil do good, and your good do evil instead?
Is it about you, or others?
Usually Evil is about oneself, with disregard to everyone else. Good is more about altruism and self sacrifice. But in the end, do i help others because i like to see them smile? Or to make something that i prefer better? Maybe i'm just selfish and want to see everyone smile because of me, so i feel better about myself. It's not shameful to understand the selfish nature of humans.
And of course, you can look at it another way as well. There is no such thing as good and evil. There is only good for example, or a set of sociology rules that have proven to make people happier and more productive as part of a group. Absence of that, makes people unhappy, and creates room for "evil" and unhappiness.
In the same sense of "duality fail". Like, there is no light and darkness. There is only light, and absence of it, aka darkness. There are only particles of light, photons. In the same way, there is no heat and cold. There is only fast movement of molecules, aka high kinetic energy, aka heat, or absence of it, and cold as a result.
So, there is only Good, not Evil.
Or is it the other way around...? Aahahaha! o_O
No drinking for the rest of the night >_>
In general, for real life, i think, these values coexist in everyone as tendencies, like the yin-yang symbol that my friend @belgarathmth posted earlier in the thread.
In BG though, LE or NE for the win!
I also want to share with you, while i'm still drunk, that i feel that someone (like God?) is watching me, using my human-centric logic trying to reason with the laws of the universe and existence/Good vs Evil while drinking, and is having a blast laughing at my expense ;P
A good example of justifying thievery and other law-breaking activities from a LE perspective would be a LE thieves' guild. They would have a code of conduct to which all guild members must adhere, such as not robbing houses in a wealthy district, since the residents pay regular extortion fees to the guild for protection. Similarly, a LE assassin's guild would have strict rules about who may be assassinated (e.g., only via contract killings approved by the guild hierarchy and delegated to specific guild members). Stiff punishments would be meted out to those who freelance or members who kill without prior authorization. It's been a long time since I've seen that movie (which I really enjoyed). I'd say he's Chaotic Neutral with Evil tendencies. He kills only those he feels have wronged him in some way (which, admittedly, is pretty subjective), and is out for himself, pure and simple. Riddick has no desire to be a part of the "civilized" world; he just wants to be left alone, and will deal ruthlessly with anyone who gets in the way.
I also don't see how it messes up the definition. I would look at it a bit like if you were put either a black or a white ball in a box and hand the box to me. I can't tell which ball is in the box until I open it, but once I do the ball will be the same one that you put there to start with - my opening won't alter it.
The thing is, the Universe is chaotic evil. Since You *are* the Universe, You are of course, chaotic evil.
We human beings are capable of something better than You. We *are* better than You. We have all the potential, and You just keep not existing there in all Your absolutely passive, uncaring, chaotic evil glory.
You wanna throw floods and meteors at us? Go ahead, knock Yourself out. I betcha we'll survive it. We're like that. You had to rewrite Your whole archetypal "Ooo, look at Me, I'm gonna wipe you all out with a flood" story after we survived it (nyah, nyah!), to include cute fuzzy animals and rainbows. We keep making You do that. Come on, admit it. You secretly *like* cute fuzzy animals and rainbows.
Heck, You even are planning to make our Sun explode in a couple billion years or so. I'll see You a supernova, and raise You a space-faring civilization that evolves *despite* You.
What's really kind of hilarious to poor little me, who can totally be smited by big, bad, You, is that, since we humans *rise again* from You, again, and again, and again, we totally influence You and develop You and create *YOU*, just as much as You think You create *us*.
See "process theology 101". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_theology
I hate You for the source of all human Evil that You are, not to mention as the chaotic evil author of a cold, uncaring, random, and truly horrible Universe.
I also love You, for the source of all human Good that You are, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Nelson_Wieman
You are hateful, spiteful, horrible, awful, loving, kind, empathetic, caring, wonderful, and awesome.
And, I thank You, profoundly and deeply, from the bottom of my Soul, for giving me the joy of Life, and of knowing You in all Your chaotic lawful good evilness. :>0
::hugs @God::
Whether the process to achieve a world where everyone is either good or pacified can be considered good in itself would depend a lot on the situation, stakes and the range of alignments involved, I guess. But in most cases, probably not. I think this one, much like the dilemmas that can face the so-called lawful stupid paladin, would depend on how good they were in comparison to how strongly they felt about order/chaos. The D&D world is made up by nations led by individuals though, who may not always be that true to the alignment they represent, or represent it to its fullest extent if they are. The Upper Planes are also divided into planes of LG, NG and CG alignments, but their inhabitants don't end up in a blood war about it like their evil counterparts.
The closest down-to-earth D&D example I can think of would be a world full of Minscs and Aeries. There may be some disagreements, but no Minsc or Aerie would ever raise their hand against someone they felt were as noble, good and honest as any Minsc or Aerie would always be.
Chatoic pretty much ruins any grander plans by urging you to attack everything on sight...
@Permidion_Stark (re. video) Did she get rocks dropped on her head until she couldn't hold herself up adequately? The first two where philosophers, not psychologists. Chaotic evil is more those that are inconsiderate of things.
Aerie <--- Victim sited. Heading in.
Then there's that wall of massive blamming thickness.
Gods in the Judao source tend to go in the neutral category. "God: Go to hell. Devil: I'm already there." Regarding chance distribution of responses (666 count poll), unless the site editors had a dull effort at contribution. It's like a coupling grouping.
999
-----
666
Hey, if we put these together, we could have a party.
Then we can have a dragon eating it's own tail, and a sprite dancing on it, and a gnoll swinging over it.
Now that we have all these evil people together now, can we finally kill al the elves, or are you all just weanies trying to shirk out of things?
Lawful Evil for Blackguard/other dark knightly types though. I follow certain rules to the letter while generally being viewed as "evil" by society at large.
I'd play evil more often in computer games but unfortunately it usually feels half-done, cuts you out of much of the content, and is more about puppy-kicking than anything I can really sink my teeth into story-wise.
As far as I am aware PST is the only CRPG ever made with such an option (and that is based on hearsay)
Edit: Oh, how could I have forgotten? V:TM - Bloodlines is probably the best RPG ever for this. I'd go so far as to say "smart evil" is its intended default playstyle, with "goody goody", "stupid evil", and "one of the character types is literally insane and all their dialogue is completely different" as well-supported alternatives.
Jade empire in particular had outlined an impressive system that was NOT evil v good but rather "save people" vs "teach them to save themselves". Except the entire game, with few exception, closed fist has been traditional puppy kicking evil instead of teaching people how to help themselves.
The best way to describe evil in CRPGs is the ring quest in arcanum... A man drops a 20gp ring down a sewer manhole, there is a monster there so he can't get it. You go down and kill the monster and get the ring.
Your options are:
1. Accept his reward for the ring, 300gp. (good act)
2. Murder him for the lulz and then sell the ring to a merchant for 20gp (evil act)
Not a surprise, since Chris Avellone was the lead director, and he was also lead developer on Planescape: Torment. Pity KOTOR II wasn't finished properly, but it's still very good if you can look past that (and if you like the sort of moral murkiness it and PS:T revel in).
BTW, what do you think of the various restoration projects?
It's also worth noting that at least Stupid Evil has some wonderfully hilarious moments in those games too. Like the guy guarding the door to the Exchange front corporation on Telos, whom you can kill when he won't let you in, and then kill a series of increasingly terrified/sobbing replacements every time you walk through that section of that station until they start begging for their lives and trying to show you pictures of their children on sight.
Edit: One other game occurs to me; in Morrowind there is actually quite a bit of smart evil you can do, and even be expected to do with certain factions (like the Telvanni). There's even a "smart evil" way to beat the game after breaking the main quest by, say, eating the soul of the god that's supposed to help you and using his soul to make a bitchin' magic sword (though finding that way is very tricky if you don't use a FAQ). It's very different in tone from the other Elder Scrolls games, and if you don't hate their open-world style then it may be worth checking out.
There's also the great fact that with a decent amount of conversation skills, you can legally rob anybody by taunting them into attacking you, after which you beat them to death in justifiable self-defence in full view of the guards and take all their stuff.
You don't "just" kill an innocent or two in cold blood and shrug that off as "neutral" - you've picked a side and planted your flag. But how many of us can resist the lure of an NPC with loot? I know I've hunted my share of unsuspecting Drizzts, backstabbed quest givers after receiving a reward, and robbed the homes of starving farmers. It's not like I need the loot either; I can finish the game just as well without it. But I want it, and someone has to die for it. I'm sure I'm not the only one who's done this. And I suspect there are players out there who do similar things but think their behavior is neutral or even good, when we're all just as evil. Some of us are just more honest about it.
And why not? I know the rules of the game, I know there won't be any consequences, and I know if I murder someone all it takes is a little donation and the universe will not hold a grudge. Only I will know.
It's a scary thought. In the real world, I like to think I'm neutral at worst. But if I could see all the rules and consequences, and knew what I could get away with and what I couldn't and a brutally efficient path to get whatever I wanted, who's to say I wouldn't act the same way?
Instead it became a sort of hypocritical means of justifying your own acts of exploitation and evil. "My strength justifies itself and thereby justifies my actions; if you were stronger you could/would do the same (not that I'd let you become stronger)."
In my Star Wars Kotor fanfic that I wrote, I had two twin sisters known as the Echani Twins. One would start a sentence the other would finish it. They were assassins who enjoyed killing, especially powerful individuals.