The Lure of EVIL
This is a thread for all those who walk the dark path. For those not afraid to take what they want by any means. If you consider yourself a heroic paragon or noble soul then know this is not the place for you. There's some unicorns that need protecting from goblin (who really just want to be loved) in that field over there.
I'm neither cruel nor sadistic. I don't manipulate and use others to get what I want. I don't take joy in another's pain and yet I take so much glee in being evil in games. Whether it's the stupid evil in games like Fable or a more cunning evil in Planescape I cannot get enough of it. I've done things in games that would be considered war crimes in the real world.
So to those of you with villainous intent, why do you play evil characters? Did your daddy never love you or is there just a black pit where your heart should be?
I'm neither cruel nor sadistic. I don't manipulate and use others to get what I want. I don't take joy in another's pain and yet I take so much glee in being evil in games. Whether it's the stupid evil in games like Fable or a more cunning evil in Planescape I cannot get enough of it. I've done things in games that would be considered war crimes in the real world.
So to those of you with villainous intent, why do you play evil characters? Did your daddy never love you or is there just a black pit where your heart should be?
1
Comments
Categorising a character as good or evil doesn't make any sense. It's just D&D shorthand for making the game suitable for younger children.
Viconia is an "evil" character is as inaccurate as saying Drow are an "evil" race.
Only actions can be categorised as good or evil.
Not all morality is relative.
Actions can be inherently evil even if they achieve a greater good.
Actions can be inherently evil even if they have good intentions.
Morality is very complex, and describing this point of view as 'edgy' would indicate a lack of serious thought given to the issue.
Indifference can turn a man neutral. Apathy, internal numbness...tragic experience...
Now ask what can turn a man evil or good.
What turns a man evil?
What turned me partially evil? Ambition. Greed. Self-preservation.
"I want everything you can possibly imagine. I want money and women, power and sex, status, glory!" Luckily, alignment is not a generic descriptor you simply inherit in a vacuum to appease children, as you seem to think, but represents a sum total of your actions. A mortal character's alignment is not what they are at their core, and D&D has never attempted to suggest as much. I feel 4E's descriptions put it best when it relates that your alignment is the cosmic team you play for, whether you realize it or not. Your actions tip the scales of the multiverse, however minutely, in certain directions, and the directions you tend to lean to the most becomes your alignment for as long as you continue to do so.
This thread wasn't meant to compare moral relativism with objective morality. If you wish to discuss the idea that video game characters, no matter their in game description, exist with no predetermined morality then go right ahead. I think it could be a very interesting thread.
This thread was created in the spirit of humour. I thought it would be interesting and perhaps funny for people to explain why they play characters with a focus on acts seen as morally repugnant by society. I had expected the opening post to be sufficient in relaying this message.
After making the "I think, therefore I am argument" the next logical question is asking yourself whether the world around you exists or is an illusion. Since there is no reason to believe one over the other a leap of faith has to be taken whether or not to view the universe and other "beings" as real - which is the first fork leading down the path to good or evil. If you believe there are other beings which are just as real as you then you must act for the benefit of all these beings. If you think they are all simply illusions then you are the protagonist of reality and only things which benefit you are good for the universe since you are the only being whom "truly" exists.
By that logic, a character who has saved hundreds off people could become angry and slaughter a group of innocent children, but still be considered good due to the ethical calculus you describe - either they remain good throughout, or become good as soon as the start doing good deeds again afterwards.
Neither is true.
Goodness as an aggregation of good/evil actions does not work.
Actually I have some stuff to say about this too.
A lot of the so called evil options in the game (I judge whether or not the game considers them evil be reputation loss) are actually not evil at all.
Likewise, a lot of the so called good options in game (judged by whether or not they incur reputation gain) are not actually good at all.
Although I can appreciate the reputation boosting acts do not necessarily correspond to whether or not they are good evil, it nevertheless remains the best indicator of the expectations of good/evil party members.
So to answer the original question, my characters are doing good or neutral deeds in thier eyes, and it's only society that falsely considers them evil.
Occasionally I will play evil characters/parties that will do genuinely evil things too. But normally only acting rationally for their own personal gain. The concept described as chaotic evil by D&D is just stupid, and if I find I'm following it, it's because the game's mechanics (usually rewards) are interfering with roleplaying narrative too much
Don't get me wrong I'm not disagreeing - obviously you lose your hero status if you mass murder an orphanage, but any logic can be eschewed to both accept and reject a moral statement. IMO, logic really has no place in ethics. You can't apply objective reasoning to subjective circumstances, its like saying a meterstick is a meter long because you used a meterstick to measure what the distance is. Whenever someone uses objective reasoning it is typically supported by that person's own subjective moral viewpoint.
I don't play evil characters except when I do. Which is seldom, if ever. If I do though, its to build a power character and see how much virtual destruction I can cause in an afternoon.
Plus this forum members have a sick pleasure in turning serious threads into comedy and converting any light-hearted topic inadvertently into drama.
I'm just using it as an argument against the ethical calculus approach.
My alternative is that people can't be described as good or evil, only actions can. Basically, that you can't aggregate at all.
Our actions can be described by good or evil, but a person is a composition of all the actions, relationships and experiences... which tend to be really diverse.
A common person in real life would probably be mostly Chaotic Neutral (if you'd want to slap a label on him/her)
I think the reality is whether we like it or not, good and evil are both ENTIRELY subjective. I agree that you can't quantify, but it isn't because we ought not to - its because there is no realistic way to quantitatively OR qualitatively assign moral worth to an action. If I learned anything about taking 4 years of ethics courses, its that logic and ethics are incompatible more often than not.
Commiting a very good action cannot buy you indulgence to commit a slightly evil action
Evil actions are evil regardless of the character of the person committing them.
But I do agree that ethics are too complex to construct a hard and fast set of laws on how to live your life. Each decision must be examined on a case by case basis.
Now, I've played a number of tabletop and LARP games where situations like that were far and away the most enjoyable part for me. But translating that to a videogame is pretty much impossible with the time and technology currently available. So beating the everlasting crap out of an enemy -- something I wouldn't be able to do in real life or get away with even if I could -- is where a lot of the enjoyment comes from in this particular medium.
I enjoy killing flaming fist mercs and any others that would dare to place themselves above another man.
Edit: I think there is something to be said for how you would like to see yourself.
This was on the definition for ideals page. I was making sure I was using the word properly and would have missed it, but the name caught my eye as I enjoyed a story of his called the doors of perception a few years ago.
"The people who make wars, the people who reduce their fellows to slavery, the people who kill and torture and tell lies in the name of their sacred causes, the really evil people in a word—these are never the publicans and the sinners. No, they're the virtuous, respectable men, who have the finest feelings, the best brains, the noblest ideals."
-Aldous Huxley