Evil in Elanthia

[Xcalibur]

... You see EvilPlagueBringer the dirt elf sorcerer...

EvilPlagueBringer says: hop aboard, massies times..

There's so much persons praying evil god, still they're resting, peacefully, in town, talking on amunet, asking healling, being raised, argue, talks, wra wra wra... They cooperate in invasion...

Of course, you can't be evil really, since you cannot kill without a REAL reason, you can't be a jerk, you can't be a pain in the butt with an attitude, you get warned, you get pulled, you get locked.

My question is.. beside having crap items, what's the use to be evil when you cannot be evil?

With paladins, there will be evil paladins, the worse evil persons in some games.. I bet 5$ that we will see them in the park with others, as if anyone could even cared.

>"Man is neither angel nor beast; and the misfortune is that he who would act the angel acts the beast." - Blaise Pascal

The events of Ta'Illistim relating to the Griffin Sword Saga have awakened in me old thoughts on role-playing evil characters. I often think to myself "I wish?" but never do a thing about it. I've finally decided to put my head on the block, to risk being flamed until I am but a pile of ashes, so that my mind would be at ease.

This post is about good and evil. Originally it was intended to be on evil only, but a recent post from an "evil" character made me change my mind and I decided to speak of "good" a little too. I'll come back to that later. Before I enter the crux of the matter, I wish to make clear that my intentions are not to belittle the players of evil characters. On the contrary, I believe evil characters are the most challenging and interesting in that they are opposites of what most of us are in real life. Perhaps I should say, could be more interesting. Because this is really what I want to talk about. My personal experience tells me that evil alignments, in GSIII, are role-played in a static, unidimensional way. I propose to raise some questions that will hopefully help enrich the role-play of evil and therefore, everybody else's experience and enjoyment of the game.

What is evil?

The dictionary's first definition is "morally bad or wrong." The definition of morality that concerns us goes like this: "A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct." So we could sum it up by saying that evil is "bad according to the social system determining what is bad and what is good." You think this is basic stuff. But bear with me, the definitions will be crucial a few paragraphs down. Now that we know what evil is, let's have a look at our typical evil fantasy character in literature. He/she is overconfident, smug, arrogant, impatient and prone to gloating. Oh and let's not forget the non-negligible detail that everybody, save a dense peasant here and there, knows he is evil.

Now let us take time to examine real life evil. I have taken some of the most famous evil people that lived and will give you a brief summary of their acts.

Tomas de Torquemada

Ranked high on polls of evil people, Torquemada was born in Spain in 1420. Made Grand Inquisitor by Pope Sixtus IV, he is responsible for about 2,000 burnings at the stake. His favorite torture methods included foot roasting and suffocation. Popes and kings praised his efforts.

Vlad The Impaler

Vlad was a Romanian prince who loved torture and specifically death by impalement on stakes (in various forms, rectal or facial). Vlad often ordered people to be skinned, boiled, decapitated, blinded, strangled, hanged, burned, roasted, hacked, nailed, buried alive, stabbed, etc. He also liked to cut off noses, ears, sexual organs and limbs. These took place around the 1460's.

Mao Tse-Tung

Leader of the Gang of Four, killed somewhere between 20 and 67 million (estimates vary) of his countrymen, including the elderly and intellectuals.

Gilles de Rais

He enjoyed killing mostly young boys, whom he would sodomize before and after decapitation. He enjoyed watching his servants butcher the boys and masturbated over their entrails. He killed over 140 people. Trust me this was a gentle summary. Do a search on google and you will be appalled.

If I were to ask you to rate the above on an evil-scale of 1 to 10, 10 being the ultimate evil, I bet they would all score pretty high. And yet, if you were to compare your scores with your neighbor, you might be surprised to see some discrepancies. Then would ensue a long argument about who's more evil, argument which would never be settled because as I stated in the beginning, the very definition of evil indicates that the qualifier is subjective. It depends on one's values and views on what's moral and what isn't. A fanatical Christian could argue with me that Torquemada was a necessary evil, pun intended; many Romanians deny that Vlad was evil, many Chinese will be outraged by my putting Mao on the spot and I'm sure several Frenchmen would write to me that de Rais had his good sides. All of them would be right, for there's a brighter side to all these men, at least according to some:

The contemporary Spanish chronicler, Sebastian de Olmedo calls Torquemada "the hammer of heretics, the light of Spain, the saviour of his country, the honour of his order".

Most Romanians view Vlad as a good guy. Interestingly enough, they do not deny that Vlad did all those horrible things. They say he did indeed do those things but "mostly to the rich, the aristocrats, and the merchants. He did not spare the peasants either, the ones breaking the law, but they were by far a small percentage of his victims. He was a people's ruler and always sided with the poor. He returned land to the poor, built churches and defended the country against the numerous Ottoman attacks. "

As for Mao, I did not need to search google for long before I found hundreds of pages describing him as a "wonderful poet," "military genius" and even "godlike ruler."

Gilles de Rais is described as proud, rich, handsome, devoutly Christian, brave, young, skillful in battle, patron of the arts, and having a fine ear for music. As the Marshal of France, he was the celebrated wartime companion of Joan d'Arc. He was a scholar, soldier, courtier, and fashion plate.

I would like to advance the theory that a graph depicting the population's evil score would follow a normal gaussian distribution. I can hear you from here, protesting that there are many times more "good" people than "evil" people. That helps me introduce my next point.

Evil people do not publicly proclaim their evilness! This might come as a shock but the truly evil, the most evil, are usually charming, witty and overall liked. How many serial killers are described as "quiet, polite, introspective and generally speaking 'nice boys'"? They have to be sweet and charming if they hope to ever kill again, pardon my bluntness.

In real life, most people tend towards the vertical axis, a blend of good and evil. We find psychopaths and serial killers fascinating, because they are rare and different. In fantasy literature and fantasy role-playing games, it seems to be the contrary. Those who claim to be, or try to be, "pure evil" only make me roll my eyes and sigh. However when I do stumble upon a book where everybody seems to fall close to the middle, I get very excited. I get the same feeling in GemStone and other RPG's when encountering someone not pure black but grey, although, sadly, this does not happen often at all. What I would give to run into a villain with a sense of humor that does not say everything "darkly"...

Everything I have said on evil applies to good as well. The interesting characters are the ones who fall in the middle. The likes of Mother Teresa trigger the same fascination in me as the serial killers do but they are as rare as the psychopaths, if not more. A character who would attempt to play a saint and did it miserably would make me roll my eyes the same way I do when facing those who try to be Darth Vader but end up being Dr. Evil.

Pure good seems to strike the players' imagination a lot less than pure evil, however, and that's easy to understand. Most of us, the players, fall under the "good" side of the curve in real life and find the idea of playing an evil guy more seducing than playing just an improved version of ourselves. Shortly after the Griffin Sword events of Ta'Illistim, the player of a so-called evil character posted on a board (I wish I could recall which and cite him verbatim) that "good" characters were a disgrace to their god because they claimed to follow a "good" god yet acted against what their religion condoned. According to him, and this is my interpretation of his words, "good" characters should never backstab a friend, betray a stranger or kill a passer-by. If they do so, then they are not role-playing well. I do not know this person nor the character he plays but I will venture that he is exactly the kind of character/player I am writing this post for.

In conclusion I would like to say a few words about evolution. Moral values have changed over the centuries and I am sure will change again. What was bad then might be good today and vice versa. We, as human beings, also evolve and characters should as well, be them from a book or a game.

Again, let me insist on the fact that I wrote this post in good faith. It is not aimed at anyone nor meant to be taken as an attack of any kind. I will gladly exchange thoughts and ideas with anyone who is able to remain civil and respectful. The others of course, will be ignored.

[peam]

Roleplaying evil is entirely possible. However, a majority of the time it isn't done well.

Thuggish BanditsInTheWoods evil isn't portrayed near enough in the game due to the fact that people are scared to death of getting warned, or YE GODS NO! banned.

I'm raising a fine young halfling right now with full intentions of turning him into the type of bad guy that ambushes you in the woods (or at least attempts to) and steals all your money.

I've worked out a few little ideas for a group of nothing more than ruffians/thugs, and I think the idea would work exceptionally well with a number of people, usually working in groups of 2-3. So, if anyone's interested in that, let me know. Pansy-asses who're scared of being warned need not apply. Back on topic..

I think the statement of all "evil" characters not claiming to be evil isn't entirely true, either. While that role may be quite nice for the corrupt politician or crime boss, it isn't a demeanor often taken on by the common street criminal. And the common street criminal exists here in the real world and in Elanthia, so why not portray both sides of the table and everything in between?

/end ramble.

Now see, Peam that works fine for evil. That's one example of where evil does in fact work in Elanthia. There are also several people who play evil characters amazingly well, and unfortunately hundreds of others who's 'evil' roleplay is laughable at best.

[Bestatte]

I don't see evil as being any particular set of behaviors.

That street thug doesn't consider himself evil (if he's RPing it right anyway). He considers himself deprived of the finer things in life and taking what he feels the world owes him, in the only way he can. That isn't evil, it's survival - if you're a street thug.

The noble Lady who bestows her generosity on the "have-nots" - don't you think those undeserving poor will consider her evil some day, for daring to toss out her leftovers while she has her servants draw her bathwater?

No, I don't think it's behaviors at all. It's a mindset, as equitable to the personality as breathing is to the lungs.

Evil, in the context of a game such as this, would be much less the notion of killing people just because you can. That isn't evil, it's being a twink, and OOC.

But the one who is devoted to his god of death and darkness, who preys on the less able to offer sacrifice to his god in total TOTAL sincere humility and utter faithfulness - the rest of the world might consider evil. And he, of course, would consider him merely a humble servant of a god.

It's the motivation, not the deed itself. That street thug - if he organizes with other street thugs to rise in power as a whole, and overtake the nobility WHILE CONTINUING to be ignoble...taking bribes in exchange for "protection" - there's a good "evil" little plotline for ya.

The protection being of course - you pay me 400 silvers a week, and I'll make sure the other street thugs don't rob you blind every chance they get. And then you dole out the 400 silvers to the group. If they refuse to pay, then they're choice meat and subject to suddenly begin missing things on a regular basis.

But the rich guy who earned his way to the top by hunting and now suddenly decides hey - I can get even richer by scamming people in auctions! That isn't evil. It's just silly twink ooc justification of silly twink behavior.

On the other hand.. a guy who spends the first several game-months studying the demographics.. checking out the choicest things, learning about what people like and what they don't like..spending VERY little time hunting because he's too busy studying.. and then comes up with a game plan to scam the rich based on his IN-character IN-game studies (as opposed to printing out a list of what's what and checking out e-bay auctions of Gemstone items)...

That would be another neat little evil plotline.

Roleplaying an evil character, to me, has nothing to do with stats and spells and armor trainings and using the "bite" verb and scoffing a lot and wearing black. It has everything to do with IN-character drive and motivation and mostly consistency in the background and history you've given your character.

[Red Devil]

you used the word 'twink' wrong, do you know what 'twink' means?

[Bestatte]

There are a few different definitions of the word "twink." An early 1930's Webster's dictionary refers to "twinkle, as in stars".

A computer geek dictionary refers to a gay slang used to describe someone who looks good but is essentially brainless.

In the context of text games, I refer you to Molly O'Hara's three articles, posted on Topmudsites ( www.topmudsites.com ) in the articles section. She describes the three basic types of twinks in text games, in exquisite detail.

http://www.topmudsites.com/article19.shtml
http://www.topmudsites.com/article21.shtml
http://www.topmudsites.com/article22.shtml

Good read. Maybe you'll recognize yourself in one of them, hmm?

[Slider]

My biggest problem with many (not all, mind you) of the folks that play evil characters, is they seem to give no thought to the correlation between their chosen dieties ethos, and their actions IG. Like a worshiper of V'Tull that starts a fight, and then runs away and hides in a sancted room....or a follower of Luukos that rezzes "good" characters, etc. etc. I don't have a problem with someone being an "evil" character...but some thought should be given into what the goals, motives, and sphere of the diety you choose to worship would mean to a follower of that diety, and what impact that would have on how you play that character. Just saying "I'm a follower of Marlu, so i can be evil" just doesn't do it. Of course, the same applies to many followers of good deities as well. Sad to see how many folks aren't even familier with the history of their diety.

[Red Devil]

Yes, Number 2 of those articles is an exact carbon copy of me

[Xcalibur]

Originally posted by Slider
My biggest problem with many (not all, mind you) of the folks that play evil characters, is they seem to give no thought to the correlation between their chosen dieties ethos, and their actions IG. Like a worshiper of V'Tull that starts a fight, and then runs away and hides in a sancted room....or a follower of Luukos that rezzes "good" characters, etc. etc. I don't have a problem with someone being an "evil" character...but some thought should be given into what the goals, motives, and sphere of the diety you choose to worship would mean to a follower of that diety, and what impact that would have on how you play that character. Just saying "I'm a follower of Marlu, so i can be evil" just doesn't do it. Of course, the same applies to many followers of good deities as well. Sad to see how many folks aren't even familier with the history of their diety.

They should not allow anyone to have an evil deity before answering some stuff, have roleplaying aptitude and puting your reasons down...

Too much pseudo-evil screw it all

[Bobmuhthol]

Originally posted by Red Devil
you used the word 'twink' wrong, do you know what 'twink' means?

[Betheny]

Here's my two cents:

1. Consequences. I expect there to be consequences for an 'evil' character's actions. However: The thing I am most sick of, is these consequences only being 'enforced' upon the character -because- they follow a 'dark' Arkati. Example: Goodguy and Badguy argue. Goodguy and Badguy fight. Badguy dies. Goodguy gets a pat on the back and cheers. On the other hand, Goodguy dies. Badguy gets ostracized/hunted, whatever.

Point: Because someone's a dark character doesn't mean they want a conflict, nor does it give anyone a good reason to harm you or ruin your fun.

During the invasions of Ta'Illstim, I saw a lot of examples of this. Granted, there were intricacies involved, but the basic jist of it was this: No matter what your actions are, no matter what you say, if you are aligned with a dark Arkati, you are evil and therefore you are safe to prey upon, in words or in conflict.

If a good character does something bad, they'll get called on it. If a bad character does something good, no one notices.

2. Roleplay. I do not necessarily think that someone following a dark arkati needs to be a good roleplayer, anymore than someone that follows a light arkati needs to be. However, it seems to be a lot harder to 'pull off' a BELIEVABLE dark or evil character than a good one.

If you're a dark character, and you're nothing but a mean, evil bastard -- people are going to hate you, and not just in that good, special way. They're really going to HATE you. Maybe some people like having a character like that, but not all dark characters are like that.

I really hate stereotypes. It's so easy to look at someone, see the Lornon-related symbol, and dismiss them, for whatever reason. It's not so easy to get to know them... pick their brain... make the effort to understand... and then decide to hate them or not hate them.

It's late, I'm all over... hopefully someone gets my point.

I often find myself wishing that the people that lump my character in with the 'bastard bad guys' would take a moment and at least try.

Edited because it's late and I'm tired and not making sense.

[Edited on 7-24-2003 by Maimara]

[Dighn Darkbeam]

Some things you could do to be seen as evil really fast

1. Aid the opposing force in an invasion; either in action or in words. (Krolvin, Jants, Dark alliance, ect)

2. Spell up monsters/drop weapons for them. Should have some sort of reason, however.

3. Ignore or even taunt the dead or helpless. I can promise you in most towns this will make you the lowest of the low in a matter of seconds.

NOTE: The following of a dark Arkati or having evil or death in your name does not make you evil. Actions always speak louder than words.

These types of activities are very traditional and unoriginal in nature, and can very well be disruptive if not roleplayed well. Im sure there are many more, but those will get you evil in a hurry if you wish to walk that route.

Kris na Su'ta

[StrayRogue]

I'm sorry, but the DA didn't have hardly any consequences in TI. They would scream bloody murder, kill and kidnap the people, slay legions of the troops then go and hide at one of the tables. Now Ta'Vaalor was much more strictly controlled. Ultimately though the DA had the free reign of the city, not to mention the GM's ear when it came to events. WON has been much more balanced as it pretty much is a one sided affair of all of us VS them.

[Betheny]

Not all the 'DA' would kill elves and hide out.

[HaXt]

I think a lot of it comes down to either/both recognition or patience.

A lot of players, especially during the summer months, simply don't have the patience to really 'play' a character as everyone so far has mentioned. Not all of these people will have been playing for years, or even months, and an even larger portion of those people don't really seem to care about the intricasies of roleplay.

As with all of the internet, the majority of people playing games or chatting in chat rooms/IMs, are simply looking for some form of recogition. Bad or good, I don't think it matters. And being that the goal is attention...and it was already stated early on in this thread that 'normal is boring,' I believe it's either wishful thinking of naivety to expect the majority..especially with the 'seasonal gamers' to behave in any other way.

These people won't be playing for 10 years. Most won't even be playing in a few months. I don't think it's worth getting upset over, but that's just my opinion. Why lose enjoyment when you can ignore it?