I've got a gameworld in playtest at the moment with a modern horror theme (yes, another modern horror game). Anyway, the backdrop includes Good and Evil, with capital G and E. There can be no compromise between the two, each seeks to fill the universe to the absolute exclusion of the other, and in their purest form, each is intolerant of what I guess we can call 'imperfection' in adherence to their ideal or lack thereof.

My question, or really a call for opinions, is:

"What is Good, and what is Evil?" And beyond that, is there a difference between "Good" and "good", and likewise "Evil" and "evil"?

After all, what can be beneficial for one person could be harmful to another. The good for the many could be evil for the one, and vice versa.

Right now I have expressed a very Western, quasi-Biblical notion of the concepts in the gameworld, though there is no single entity in the gameworld embodying either concept, and the gameworld is not based on a Christian motif or hierarchy of beings. However, Good can be loosely represented by the Seven Cardinal Virtues and Evil by the Seven Deadly Sins. Adventurers will represent a flawed form of Good, i.e. a mix of Good and Evil, with tendency to support Good (which is why they're PC's).

I'm looking for alternate viewpoints on what the concepts Good and Evil represent. Order/Chaos, Light/Dark, Western vs. Eastern concepts, etc.

Greg Porter
BTRC

Don't forget Life/Death.  You could go back and read Zelazny's Creatures of Light and Darkness for a vision of how that antinomy can be handled.  It's a pretty cool read in any event, although the "sides" are not particularly different in their ways of doing business.

Hi!
  My analysis of the Force leads me to beleive that the sole division of the light side/dark side is "Who gains by your words or actions?" Killing is not a sin with the Force, so the moral dilemna is who gains...

My favorite polarity of good vs. evil is selflessness vs. selfishness. Good is putting the needs of other before yourself, and evil is putting your own needs before others. I find this works nicely, because it selflessness is something that most moral systems argue for in some form or another, and is something you can define fairly objectively.

It is also nice from a game perspective, because it is an impossibly high standard to always be selfless. After all, if you always put the needs of others above yourself, you'd starve to death.

Paul wrote:
My favorite polarity of good vs. evil is selflessness vs. selfishness. Good is putting the needs of other before yourself, and evil is putting your own needs before others. I find this works nicely, because it selflessness is something that most moral systems argue for in some form or another, and is something you can define fairly objectively.

It is also nice from a game perspective, because it is an impossibly high standard to always be selfless. After all, if you always put the needs of others above yourself, you'd starve to death.

Thunder_God wrote:

Paul wrote:
My favorite polarity of good vs. evil is selflessness vs. selfishness. Good is putting the needs of other before yourself, and evil is putting your own needs before others. I find this works nicely, because it selflessness is something that most moral systems argue for in some form or another, and is something you can define fairly objectively.

I think it is impossible to really define. Why do people volunteer to help others? To feel better about themselves.
Why do they do nice things? To have others think better of them, often.

These causes may not be conscious, but they are there.

You're correct of course. I just live this way, and state it often, so had to note it ;)

The reason why I like selflessness vs. selfishness as a standard for a game like this is that, from a practical perspective, it is a ridiculous standard. It is based entirely on motivation, and no one really say what anyone's motivation really is, even for themselves.

From the perspective of an omniscient force for good, though, it would be perfectly reasonable. Help others, for the right reasons, and you are good. Help yourself instead of helping others and you are bad. It immediately puts the heroes in a moral quandry. They are almost forced to break the rules in order to be effective. And if the side for evil is sufficiently awful (satanic baby-eaters), the heroes will be motivated to do so.

The heroes can't win, which ideal fodder for horror.

Generally the distinction between lowercase and uppercase is made based on usage. Are you comparing a thing to a value, or are you reffereing to the value itself.

Good and Evil are philosophical concepts. The easiest way, in my opinion, to find differing distinctions between the two would be to look into various philosophys. Your ideas so far suggest you're already at least familiar enough with the Christian distinctions to use it as a concept. I'd also look into Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Secular Humanism, and Hedonism. Just as a disclaimer, I'm not making any suggestions on religious practice, only suggesting a starting point for possible research on game concepts.

Hey, Greg --

A lot of societies define good and evil based on place in the social order.

Consider: High Caste versus Low Caste, Inside of Society versus Outside of Society, Banditry versus Law, Industry versus Laziness, Tradition versus Innovation, Proper Action versus Scheming.

Also common is Magic versus Reason.

yrs--
--Ben

The good and evil are in the game whatever you want them to be. Make them be whatever is most suitable for the game.

If you want inspiration, take a look at some schoolbook about ethics. That should give some ideas.

btrc wrote:
I'm looking for alternate viewpoints on what the concepts Good and Evil represent. Order/Chaos, Light/Dark, Western vs. Eastern concepts, etc.

Hi Greg,

I may be missing it, but I'm a bit lost. Is the intention of your game to examine what Good and Evil is, or are you trying to predefine it?

good (gʊd)

adj., bet·ter (bĕt'ər), best (bĕst).
Being positive or desirable in nature; not bad or poor: a good experience; good news from the hospital.
Having the qualities that are desirable or distinguishing in a particular thing: a good exterior paint; a good joke.
Serving the desired purpose or end; suitable: Is this a good dress for the party?
Not spoiled or ruined: The milk is still good.
In excellent condition; sound: a good tooth.
Superior to the average; satisfactory: a good student.
Used formerly to refer to the U.S. Government grade of meat higher than standard and lower than choice.
Of high quality: good books.
Discriminating: good taste.
Worthy of respect; honorable: ruined the family's good name.
Attractive; handsome: good looks.
Beneficial to health; salutary: a good night's rest.
Competent; skilled: a good machinist.
Complete; thorough: a good workout.
Reliable; sure: a good investment.
Valid or true: a good reason.
Genuine; real: a good dollar bill.
In effect; operative: a warranty good for two years; a driver's license that is still good.
Able to continue in a specified activity: I'm good for another round of golf.
Able to pay or contribute: Is she good for the money that you lent her?
Able to elicit a specified reaction: He is always good for a laugh.
Ample; substantial: a good income.
Bountiful: a good table.
Full: It is a good mile from here.
Pleasant; enjoyable: had a good time at the party.
Propitious; favorable: good weather; a good omen.
Of moral excellence; upright: a good person.
Benevolent; kind: a good soul; a good heart.
Loyal; staunch: a good Republican.
Well-behaved; obedient: a good child.
Socially correct; proper: good manners.
Sports.
Landing within bounds or within a particular area of a court and therefore in play: The first serve was wide, but the second was good.
Passing between the uprights of the goal and therefore scoring, as a field goal in football.
Used to form exclamatory phrases expressing surprise or dismay: Good heavens! Good grief!

n.
Something that is good.
A good, valuable, or useful part or aspect.
Welfare; benefit: for the common good.
Goodness; virtue: There is much good to be found in people.
goods
Commodities; wares: frozen goods.
Portable personal property.
(used with a sing. or pl. verb) Fabric; material.
goods Slang. Incriminating information or evidence: tried to get the goods on the crook.

e·vil (ē'vəl)

adj., e·vil·er, e·vil·est.
Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant.
Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful: the evil effects of a poor diet.
Characterized by or indicating future misfortune; ominous: evil omens.
Bad or blameworthy by report; infamous: an evil reputation.
Characterized by anger or spite; malicious: an evil temper.

n.
The quality of being morally bad or wrong; wickedness.
That which causes harm, misfortune, or destruction: a leader's power to do both good and evil.
An evil force, power, or personification.
Something that is a cause or source of suffering, injury, or destruction: the social evils of poverty and injustice.
[hr]This is just my (somewhat smartass) way of asking how, in the name of the Fickle God of Semantics, you expect to resolve the most fundamental (meta)ethical question that faces not only humanity but, I suspect, all sapients? Here on The Forge? Sure, we do alright with game theory and its sematics... but let's be honest; is this truly a valid question vis a vis game design?

I think the best you can hope for is "Good is A and Evil is Not A" and then look at ways in which rules sytems, in general, can "hook into" that arbitrary metaethics. Such a debate could be very germane to The Forge, in that you could go a long way towards determing how ethics and morals can become/be reflected in game elements--a far, far more interesting debate, frankly. Just a suggestion.

If this poll is "game theory" then any subject is valid for any board at The Forge (I am surprised it's lasted 2 hours without moderation).

Sorry to be the Thread Thug;
David

I think Predefine, as the game is a fight between the two. Can't speak for him though.

I may be missing it, but I'm a bit lost. Is the intention of your game to examine what Good and Evil is, or are you trying to predefine it?

Since you are willing to declare, in the game, what you think is Good or Evil, this thread has more utility than I first thought. I will try to be more helpful, this time:
[hr]Be careful of the Infinite Retreat (a close cousin of infinite regress).

You are going to broadly define Good and Evil for the players, so that they can gauge Good Acts against Evil Acts, for their characters.

Then you are going to set up Difficult Moral Decisions that require the players to balance their choice of Acts... against what? Pragmatism? Utopianism? Idealism? Rational Empiricism? Solipsism? Basically, even if you provide a nice, succinct dichotomy between Absolute Good and Absolute Evil (and in the process solve humanity's need for religion), you still must frame that within a "metaethics" that speaks to how one must interpret those absolutes in normative, limited decision making. Those metaethics are what keeps human sociologist and philosophers at work, to this day: our body of knowledge is small; our apprehension of cause and effect in a given instant even smaller; yet we must act "ethically" and "morally" to serve whatever ultimate metaethics we have adopted.

Only if the PCs will always have all of the facts of any situation, can they act Absolutely Good or Evil... and in such a case, if they are "righteous" or "Good" then they become automatons with no "decision" to make. Their implied/assigned Goodness, coupled with complete knowledge of chances and consequence, leads to no "moral" behavior... just automatic behavior.

In short, NO definition of Capital-G Good or Capital-E Evil has room for "difficult" moral decisions. You have to decide on more than just The Big Two: you need to develop game systems/situations that give the players ways to hook into the "difficult" part of the decision, not the "moral" part.

Your example is quite telling: Sorcery is *E*vil--yet, not really, as one can come up with pragmatic situations in which its *E*vil is acceptable to *G*ood characters. In fact, sorcery is NOT really *E*vil. It just TENDS to be *E*vil, but sometimes it can be wrestled into a net gain of *G*ood for the whole. In your very example, you express a form of Pragmatism coupled with Moral Relativism, not the Absolutism you hope to establish with Capital Letters.

You certainly haven't chosen a trivial subject, for your game theme or for this thread. Good luck;
David

Consent / non-consent are interesting poles for good and evil (and a bit controversial, to boot).

You are going to broadly define Good and Evil for the players, so that they can gauge Good Acts against Evil Acts, for their characters.

Thanks for setting me straight Greg.

I might see Evil and Good a bit atypically. Using force to achieve your ends is what I consider wrong, and tolerance would be what I see as good. However there are times where you have to use the first like in self defence of yourself and others.This might be an interesting way to look at Evil and Good, or maybe not. In our world a lot of bad comes from the force that is used by the government typically to try to be fair, or support what some people percieve as the good. I don't want to turn your thread into political debate, so I'll drop that part. However it could be interesting if the players have the sight and know that force is evil, but that guy over there is going to be the next Hitler, or Baby Doc, is force justified? Apocalypse Girl touches on this and might be useful if you think it's an interesting take on where good and evil lie.

David: great post.

Greg: Food for thought: the "Euthyphro dilemma" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_Dilemma


and, how do you intend to make usage of sorcery corrupt the characters?

The only time I saw Good & Evil is when one group wanted what the other group had. The most horrible atrocities, oppressive governments and demoralizing philosophies were created in the name of Good. So, the historical view of Good and Evil is inappropriate. I like Yoda's commentaries on good, evil and power. It's simple and very zen like. With RPGs, I absolutely love the struggles between good and evil. More so, I like the struggles to determine what's good and what's evil. That depends entirely on the opinions of the beings in question.

Its your game and your definitions of Good and Evil apply. Its important to let your players know exactly what the distinctions are, especially if you have consequences for performing Evil (or Good) actions.

I have a game where Order and Chaos have a huge effect on what happens, both in story and game mechanics. I found that order and chaos can be measured mathematically and its easier to see consequences of actions. Order and chaos take on persona-like qualities and it becomes a driving factor in the game and how players play the game. Its possible for your players to do anything they want, but there are forces in the background that can sit-up and take notice.

Maybe that's where you can focus the good/evil struggle--how will the players interact in the game? A character is good or evil. So, how do the game mechanics affect what happens to the characters? Hellraiser movies and comics wallow in good and evil, but somehow point out that there is no good. Everything is evil to some extreme and the characters have no way of avoiding it.

That you know about evil and can become a path towards evil. I read a comic where champions of good fought evil. On returning from their battles, the champions were purged of the knowledge of evil from their body, mind and soul. Coming into contact with minions of evil was enough to corrupt them. In that society, true good was the ignorance of evil. True evil was the knowledge of everything. Kind of reminds me of the Garden of Eden and the Tree of Knowledge.

Regardless of the approach, you will be confronted with the religion factor. One possibility is too develop religions based on the pure ideals of good and evil. Most likely, you'll find they operate the same way. Check out In Nomine by Steve Jackson Games. The essays on good and evil are very interesting.

Good luck! Evil luck?!?!?

Troy

Have you read Paladin?  It's freely available on the web and it touches on some similar themes -- there's a very rigid black-and-white moral Code that all the PC's are supposed to adhere to, and the GM serves challenging situations that are variously 1) "gray" -- i.e., straddle the divide of Good & Evil, and 2) tempting -- the bigger the challenge, the more tempted the players should be to use the "dark side" of their power to get things done. 

The kicker is that the gaming group creates the Code together.

Another game your post puts me in mind of is Nobilis, where there are multiple different factions, including Heaven and Hell -- the trick here is that Heaven and Hell are inhuman in the perfection and rigidity of their beliefs.  The individual PC's have to find some way of reconciling the impossibly strict dictates of their code with the everyday moral dilemmas of life as a demigod. 

The first of these games has rather specific mechanics for determining how faithful a PC has been to their code, while the second uses the codes as part of the setting and offers rewards for serving their code, but doesn't go any further.  Where does your game fall on this spectrum?  That's where the rubber meets the road, it seems to me.

NN:
I don't think the Euthyphro Dilemma applies in my case, since Good and Evil (and what they represent) are external forces. If you ask "a)does an evildoer do evil because it is an evildoer, or b) is it an evildoer because it does evil?", the answer is a). In this gameworld, it is the nature of an evildoer to do evil, but one can do evil without being a dedicated evildoer, just like one can play basketball without being a pro player. A Bond villain quote comes to mind: "Torture is more of a hobby for me..."

Sorcery, or any other Evil influence corrupts PC's by giving them increased levels in personality traits. Minor personality flaws grow until they are obsessions or psychoses, and once a certain level is reached, they succumb to the 'dark side' and the GM gets permanent control of the character. The final stage is irreversible, but the process is not. PC's can overcome their inner demons and reduce any effects they have suffered, but it is not easy.

Danny_K:
Within the game, PC's are fighting the good fight because that's the choice they have made. You can See the Evil in the world and choose to simply try to avoid it. PC's have chosen to act. Within that framework, they have an internal code for the group they are a part of, with varying degrees of rigidity (don't harm the innocent (rigid), follow the law...at least when dealing with humans(less rigid), and so on). Enforcement of that is done by higher-ups within the organization the PC's are part of, so there is both "doing the right thing because it is right" and "doing the right thing because if you go rogue your own people will bust a cap on you".

The higher-ups in the PC's organization actually fear Good as much as they do Evil. They know that if Good ever returned from wherever it went, humanity would be shoved into the same hole Evil is in. We don't meet the standards of Good anymore than we can really be Evil.

Greg Porter
BTRC

btrc wrote:
Not so much. The game backdrop is that big-E Evil has been imprisoned for all eternity, and big-G Good has vanished to parts unknown. Both of these happened a loooong time ago. But, it seems that Evil is starting to leak back into this frame of existence, and humanity is the only thing in way. Humans are too 'small' to be truly Good or Evil, with few exceptions, so we are little-g good fighting the efforts of big-E Evil, desperately using every tool at our disposal.

btrc wrote:
This gameworld has Good and Evil as properties inherent to reality, not value judgements made by sentient beings. We're just incapable of understanding the absolutes of either, much like it is difficult for us on this thread to imagine how Good and Evil could exist in the absence of thought. Those are part of the 'great unknowables' of the game. PC's have to deal with the big grey area in the middle, where you -can- do good things for bad reasons and vice versa. PC's are not so much trying to be Good as they are trying to -not- become Evil.

Good is in essence "Following Rules". Evil is "Break Rules". The question is, what are those rules? Take any example of good or evil and you can follow this formula. For instance the "eating babies" example would break "don't hurt others" and "protect the weak".

There you get into some pretty thorny issues as far as players preconception of what the rules should be. You could end up with a game that a lot of people object to because you didn't get the rules right. However all does not need to be lost. You could be functionally vague. In otherwords, just establish the rules that will matter in game, such as "don't use sorcery", "don't hurt self", "don't hurt others" and "protect the weak" (this is not an exclusive list, just examples). A little playtesting would give you more as the players try and get around the rules and still say they're good.

Incidentally the "don't hurt others" rule is thorny, but rich in conflict. If you're familiar with the anime series Trigun, the main character tries not to hurt anyone and never kills, he has to be extraordinary to do this and live. The same thing with a character, can you harm evil and still be good? The answer to that would be yes, unless there is a specific rule otherwise and if the rules say the player is allowed to enforce rules. That is do the rules include penalties?

All that is well and good, but it still leaves you regressing. If Good and Evil are "unknowable" then how can I make a "difficult" moral decision for my character?

our examples of "grey morality" with Sorcery really become almost gamist calculations of expedience:
Option A: Never use Sorcery, never enjoy its expedience, never suffer its taint.
Option B: Use Sorcery at will, maximize its expedience, go out in a blaze of glory--err, infamy.
Option C: Factor time to complete against potential gains of expedience versus the deferred cost of those gains.

You've mentioned that Evil is "sticky". Is Good, too?

It seems to me, the PCs in this setting just think they want Good to win. What they really want is for Evil to not win, which is not the same thing. It's not even the same thing as Evil losing, because if Evil loses, the Good wins, and that's not good. Basically they're trying to keep a balance between the two in which they can survive. Good is just inactive in this setting, so there's no struggle against it.