Good vs. Evil

[Tim Gray]

good (with a little "g") - doing what you do without hurting anyone; getting along

No, that's not anything at all. The labels are of most use when applied to thought-and-action which is notable in some way.

Virtue is based on anything that helps the group (as opposed to strictly helping everybody - outsiders might be helped, but that seems irrelevant).

That's debatable too. Hospitality to strangers has often been thought a major virtue. Destroying the group's entire belief system and/or way of life could be virtuous, harming its short-term interests to improve it in the longer term. It's not as simple as you paint it, and possibly not even accurate. It may well be that "what serves the common good" coincides with virtue, but that doesn't mean one derives from the other. "Good" is not completely described by utilitarianism.

[contracycle]

This is rambling - let's go for a point. Who decides what is "good" and what is "evil"?

Whichever body the person asking the question considers to be legitimate.

My problem with abtsract evil is much as outlined above; hence, for men, Evil is inherently anti-premise, because as soon as the motivations move into this abstracted territory they become meaningless.

I too had an "orcish awakening" in which I relaised my players were more bloodthirsty, more evil, than the "evil" orcs.  In my case they were winkling a cowardly orc out from his hiding place with much vigour.

[Mike Holmes]

To sum it up, there is no 'overriding evil' in the Star Wars universe; 'The Dark Side' is not out to get anybody.  In that realm, evil is the product of man's ambition.  Now other posts have implied wholly different brands of evil and I just wanted to say that Nathan would be well-served to focus on what kind was desired for his game first.

No overriding evil in Star Wars? Certainly the "Dark Side" is just a metaphor as with everything else in Star Wars, but, in RL, ambition does not enable you to fling things through the air with a wave of your hand. Star Wars proposes an objective Force, that is only obtained through giving in to evil impulses. Sounds evil to me. Anyway, I buy into it.

Apparently there is a point at which your disbelief suspenders are snapped by certain portrayals of Evil. I am simply pointing out that you are finding fault where I believe there is none. In every game that I have read where there are Evil Orcs, there is a statement about how they are so evil, and usually some description about them being brutal, etc, something that explains why they are considered evil. Where is the missing part about what the evil is? If I say there is an objective evil in my game world that is long term and out to get someone, that's not enough? Nathan's idea isn't well fleshed out, but it makes total sense to me as far as it's been described. Your suggestion that he not take that rout is what I object to.

I think you mistake your proscription for a prescription.

Mike

[Le Joueur]

To sum it up, there is no 'overriding evil' in the Star Wars universe; 'The Dark Side' is not out to get anybody.  In that realm, evil is the product of man's ambition.  Now other posts have implied wholly different brands of evil and I just wanted to say that Nathan would be well-served to focus on what kind was desired for his game first.

No overriding evil in Star Wars? Certainly the "Dark Side" is just a metaphor as with everything else in Star Wars, but, in RL, ambition does not enable you to fling things through the air with a wave of your hand. Star Wars proposes an objective Force that is only obtained through giving in to evil impulses. Sounds evil to me. Anyway, I buy into it.

Apparently there is a point at which your disbelief suspenders are snapped by certain portrayals of Evil. I am simply pointing out that you are finding fault where I believe there is none. In every game that I have read where there are Evil Orcs, there is a statement about how they are so evil, and usually some description about them being brutal, etc, something that explains why they are considered evil. Where is the missing part about what the evil is? If I say there is an objective evil in my game world that is long term and out to get someone, that's not enough? Nathan's idea isn't well fleshed out, but it makes total sense to me as far as it's been described. Your suggestion that he not take that rout is what I object to.

That's right Mike, "No overriding evil in Star Wars."  I can't imagine why you think simple telekinesis is ooooh, scary...evil.  To me the point always was rather Eastern; by misusing supernatural power you become corrupt.  Here the telekinesis isn't corrupt, hell, even master Yoda does it.  The evil is using anger to tap into it.  That means the Force has no 'Dark Side,' only man does.  Use anger; become corrupt.  Was that too simple for you?  The evil exists only in the user, not the Force.

Where do you get this weird idea that I have a problem here?  My 'suspenders aren't snapped.'  I find no fault except possibly naive or incomplete design.  In what you've read about "Evil Orcs," evil was spelled out for you, as you so testify.  Where is that in what Nathan posted?  I must have missed it.  It certainly didn't seem emerge from the following discussion.

If you say that "objective evil in [your] game world that is long-term and out to get someone," that's exactly enough.  That's what I was asking Nathan to do.  I asked him to think about "What is Evil?"

You've have got me so confused with someone else I have no idea what you're arguing about.  I completely agree with you that "Nathan's idea isn't well fleshed out."  It was my purpose to suggest where flesh was needed, not what flesh.  I have suggested no route for Nathan.

Had I just said, "What is Evil?" I would have been guilty of not explaining.  That I explained how I became sensitized to the idea and what I did should in no way be taken as some kind of 'suggestion of route.'

Why are you so full of vitriol?  I just don't see where I told Nathan what he was supposed to do.  I simply suggested where he might 'add flesh' to his game.  I'm sure whatever you think you read "makes total sense" to you, I can easily see you read something into it.  I, however, didn't see what you saw and asked for it.  (I would be wonderfully happy if Nathan spelled out exactly what you saw as opposed to what you think I am directing.  I just wanted to see whatever it was explicitly.)

I thought it might be good for Nathan to 'put a little meat' on the bones of his game where evil was concerned before things got too far, but I don't really think I should have any say in what.

So that leaves me wondering, what is your problem Mike?

Fang Langford

[Le Joueur]

good (with a little "g") - doing what you do without hurting anyone; getting along

No, that's not anything at all. The labels are of most use when applied to thought-and-action that is notable in some way.

Temperance is nothing?  You might have noticed I left 'true neutral' off the list.  Like some have posited, my own bias colors my expressions.  I believe that man is inherently good.  I believe that 'the little things,' the pleases and thank-yous, that help people 'just get along' are vastly underrated.  I think society grinds forward only with a lot of 'let it go,' etiquette 'grease.'  To me, just doing your part to be a part of society (as opposed to being the anarchist as 'grabbing what you can') is synonymous with being good.

If you think 'being nice' and not causing problems is "not anything at all," woe betides a society of people like you.  (Is it getting grim in here or is it just me; this is supposed to be humorous.)

Virtue is based on anything that helps the group (as opposed to strictly helping everybody - outsiders might be helped, but that seems irrelevant).

That's debatable too. Hospitality to strangers has often been thought a major virtue. Destroying the group's entire belief system and/or way of life could be virtuous, harming its short-term interests to improve it in the longer term. It's not as simple as you paint it, and possibly not even accurate. It may well be that "what serves the common good" coincides with virtue, but that doesn't mean one derives from the other. "Good" is not completely described by utilitarianism.

First of all, hospitality to strangers is for the common good, because you can't know all the members of your culture.  Helping each other out is good.  Giving up all worldly possessions to the poor is 'Good' (virtuous).

I can't see how a group could ever see destroying their entire belief system and/or way of life is anything they'd describe as good.  (Try explaining that to the Native Americans or perhaps the Russians.)  "Oh, they'll thank us later."  Not!  If you've destroyed their belief system, the people 'thanking you' aren't those whose way of life you've destroyed, they'd be whatever you made them (and of course they'd be thankful to their 'creator')

The real world is never as simple as one would paint it; we're talking about role-playing game design here.  While it could potentially be dubious that the 'what serves the common good' is not 'virtuous,'¹ that isn't exactly relevant to what I was describing.  What I was talking about is, if there's some force of 'Evil' beyond the corruptions of man, then there should also be some kind of 'Good' that is likewise.

What I saw being lost in the discussion of 'the price of Good' was the idea that 'normal' people are good.  Too much 'Good vs. Evil' and sometimes 'if you're not a part of the solution, you're a part of the problem' will creep in making all the 'normal' people into 'Evil' too.  That's why I thought there should be some note of the difference between 'Good' and good.  (To spare all the good people a lot of grief.)

And I am beginning to suspect that you are using a slightly softer version of 'virtuous' than I am.  (That's my secret motivation for starting to call it 'Good.')  A virtuous person to me gives all for their peers without limit.  Certainly people who take a vow of poverty and work tirelessly to feed the poor and care for the ill at the expense of everything they might possess are virtuous.  You might say that giving to charity is virtuous, but I'd say that's only a pale imitation (as far as a 'Good vs. Evil' role-playing game would go).

I guess it comes down to the subtle difference between being 'of virtue' and being virtuous.  So let's toss the muddy 'virtuous' terminology and simply recognize some player characters will fight for 'Good,' while all the unindictable non-player characters who support 'good' are not the target.  Is that easier to understand?

Fang Langford

(Whose still a little testy after Mike's rebuttal, sorry if the tone bled over to this; that was not my intention.)

¹ This is not the place to discuss this kind of sociology and terminology, any interested I would invite to contact me privately.

[Ron Edwards]

Hey,

Scuse me, but Mike and Fang, you two are well over the personal-line in this discussion. C'mon, the point here is to help Nathan, not to see whose hard-on is bigger.

You'll help Nathan best by articulating how you think good and evil are best represented in role-playing design, or conversely ways which have fallen flat. Period. Who's making the most sense is Nathan's choice relative to his goals for the game. Since those goals are, to say the least, vague, that means no one else can even guess which concept/paradigm is going to fly best for him.

Just make yourselves clear to him, get feedback regarding that clarity, and quit talkin' to each other about it. Any debate you two have in this regard is irrelevant, and the way you're going about it is descending rapidly into a bad place.

Best,
Ron

[Mike Holmes]

My apollogies if the tone was somehow over the line. Just a subject I feel pasionate about.

Mike

[contracycle]

Well, for my money the concept of good and evil as abstract metaphysical entities is too weak to fly in any circumstance.  Take star wars again - is the degree of stoic self-denial described by the jedi in fact virtuous?  Could not the criticism be made that they are disappearing up their own fundaments, and that true enlightenment arises from commiting wholly and with the heart?  I'm not going to go too far down this path 'cos the bad jedi are obviously made as bad jedi, but as soon as you get players examining your conceptual system from the inside the seams are going to start to show.  Any definition of good can be warped in such a way that if you look at it from the right perspective, almost any behaviour can be rationalised as good. IMO as soon as you start tryonig to think about NPC's coherently, to get inside their heads and make them real people,m concepts of good and evil get the chuck - people almost never self-identify as evil, and the rare exceptions are almost certainly IMO a psychological disorder.  I think abstract good and evil can only work in one of two ways: as uncritical "us vs. them", as in He-Man, or as the orverriding premise, a thesis of "what is good", or more accurately, "this is good".  Neither IMO are conducive to interesting characterisation.

[Le Joueur]

I think abstract good and evil can only work in one of two ways: as uncritical "us vs. them", as in He-Man, or as the orverriding premise, a thesis of "what is good", or more accurately, "this is good".  Neither IMO are conducive to interesting characterisation.

Or maybe a Premise like "What isn't Good in the face of abject Evil?" or such.

Fang Langford

[Tim Gray]

Fang said:
If you think 'being nice' and not causing problems is "not anything at all," woe betides a society of people like you. (Is it getting grim in here or is it just me; this is supposed to be humorous.)

Your general tone was a bit offensive, which is your responsibility regardless of previous posts.

You've got it backwards. I was assuming that just getting along without harming each other was the default position, and therefore no special label is needed for it. That seems to me a decent basis for a society, and not grim at all. Later in your post you require someone to be a total saint before they qualify as "virtuous" - now that would be an unpleasantly cynical society. The label "high virtue" someone used before would be as good as anything for the paladin-types.

I've cheated here, of course, by getting in a point in the philosophical discussion after Ron's post. I agree with him - this should be about helping to develop the game idea, but that's really hard without more input from the original poster. And I've pretty much forgotten the original question...

[Ron Edwards]

Tim,

Exactly. My initial concern with Nathan's vagueness is justified. Without topical focus, discussion becomes occasionally-insightful maundering and an arena for rivalry.

This thread is closed unless Nathan chimes in with some concrete design concern for his game. Everyone else, please do not post unless this happens.

Best,
Ron

[Le Joueur]

Fang, You've got it backwards. I was assuming that just getting along without harming each other was the default position, and therefore no special label is needed for it. That seems to me a decent basis for a society

And I think that's 'a basis for a decent society.'  I agree that it's the "default position," I call it society (less would be anarchy).

To me (using Nathan's words), if you're writing a game about "Good vs. Evil" that is "grand, sweeping, [and] epic" to have "finesse" and be "subtle," you'll really need to label everyone (at least in the designer's mind).  The reason is if you're dealing with an idea "based...on the idea of Paladins vs. Dark Knights," that occurs "in some medium that neither side can directly control, but both can influence," I'd say to be relevant that it pretty much has to be "default" society.  If it's default society and "Dark power can be acquired easily, but the cost for such power takes the form of mental or physical deterioration," then the stock and trade with the non-player characters will be moral ambiguity.

I mean, if that "medium" cannot be "directly controlled," it sounds like the realm of society.  Only the morally ambiguous sound 'uncontrollable' in a "Good vs. Evil" sense; at least as far as I imagine.  Thus "the fate of the universe" would have to be decided in the hearts of man.  I thought this worked well with how "using the Dark power is equivalent to self-destruction."  It isn't the power itself that destroys, but the willingness to go to that length.  That pulls in the whole 'seduction of the dark side' implied by the references to Clinton's game.  Nathan said, "Light power is very difficult to acquire," thus the players of the game should probably be constantly caught between the rock (the need to use "Light power" which is hard, but worth it) and a hard place (the potential of using "Dark power" for a quick 'win' versus the powers of Darkness).  Fertile gaming ground to me.

Later in your post you require someone to be a total saint before they qualify as "virtuous" - now that would be an unpleasantly cynical society. The label "high virtue" someone used before would be as good as anything for the paladin-types.

Funny, I guess I always equated "total saint" with "paladin-types" (as in Joan of Arc), and since Nathan specified "the idea of Paladins vs. Dark Knights," that's what I thought he meant.

I've cheated here, of course, by getting in a point in the philosophical discussion after Ron's post. I agree with him - this should be about helping to develop the game idea, but that's really hard without more input from the original poster. And I've pretty much forgotten the original question...

So did I.  It was, "I'm fishing for setting ideas here."  So at first the "What is Evil?" question seems superfluous.  The problem is that I believe that evil means different things in different settings.  In a superhero setting, it's that indescribable (and probably irrational) urge to 'take over' or 'destroy' the world.  In the 'old western,' one of the main meanings is the willingness to kill for pleasures.  In fantasy espionage, it seems to go back to similar motivations as in superheroes, but with much more insidious methods.  In Dungeons & Dragons and similars, it's either cultural (gritty fantasy) or epic (what are those liches up to?).  Cthulhu offers yet another entirely.

With all those in mind, all I could say was "What is Evil?"  Once I have a handle on that, it narrows down what I could suggest as a setting.

...Now that I think about it, has anyone considered an 'extradimensional' setting?  You know, each 'episode' the characters are projected into a different setting to combat the forces of Evil.  No, wait, now it's starting to sound like Whispering Vault.

Just a few things to ponder before delving into the original question.

Fang Langford

Edit: Sorry for the cross-post.  I agree with Ron.

[Paganini]

This thread is closed unless Nathan chimes in with some concrete design concern for his game. Everyone else, please do not post unless this happens.

If/when that happens, Ron, I'll start a new thread for it, rather than dredge up this one again.

I *have* been paying attention though, and even though I'm still waiting for the muse to strike, there have been a lot of useful comments in this thread. I have a much better idea about what I'm going to have to solidify before such a game will work.

Thanks everyone! :)