Personally, I feel one of the best things about role-playing games (perhaps in the past) is the clear definition and the way it allows you to indulge in some cathartic, guilt-free murder!
I've never really been into 'evil' playable races either. Call me a Care Bear (I can hear you doing it) but the 'joy' of role-playing 'nasty', especially while trying to play alongside other real people, starts to wear thin pretty quickly.
"I backstab out tank, loot the treasure and escape in a smoke screen!"
"WTF dude?!"
"Hey, I'm just role-playing my character"
"Yeah, see you next week... Maybe..."
Sorry to you lovers of evil-doing, but if you don't find it somewhat stressful acting evil, isn't that a bit of a worry, psychologically speaking? hehe
To be honest it is/was very rare to find someone who took it that far, but if you choose in your character profile, to follow the God of Hate and then don't follow through and act consistently hateful, what's the point?
Then again, is my definition of "cathartic murder" any more honest? Am I just kidding myself that I'm not 'evil'?
In the recent newsletter there was some great insight into the lore of Orcs, but there was one thing that made me a little uncomfortable: -
"Crowded Cranium. The second reason for the North Tusk’s frequent forays into the swords and spears of Thronefast might be a remarkably thick skull, which leaves little room for a brain of significant size. Orcs also have poor hearing as a result, which often leads to misunderstood commands in the frenzy of battle, a chronic inability to avoid stampedes or avalanches, and a high volume of unintentional insults.
It has also been suggested that the shortness of Orc tempers may stem from increased cranial pressure, but this has never been properly vetted by academic research."
Now I'm in danger of sounding like some super-liberal Social Justice Warrior - I'm really not, but I find it interesting - doesn't this have you feeling a little sorry for the Orcs? If they are a sentient species suffering from a congenital hereditary condition, how do you feel about slaughtering them?
I love the lore and this kind of detail is excellent - I just wondered what everyone thinks about the whole 'good' and 'evil' thing these days, especially when it's totally common to even be able to play either side.
I'm willing to accept that the kind of things I do when taking 'the good' side in role-playing games is actually often pretty dubious, morally. In some games I play in a quite mercenary way and quite often don't take the obviously 'moral' way if there's a choice.
I'm waffling now... so what do you guys think?
Makes me remember back to a D&D game I had back in my younger years. I was playing a Fighter that was Neutral Evil but it was kinda on the sly since we had a Paladin in the group and I didn't want him trying to slaughter me in my sleep. The other players didn't realize my actual Alignment, just the GM knew. So I was all pretending to be this good guy, but then we got stopped by some Guards in the street who thought we were some thieves they had been chasing. I think our GM was trying to see if we could diplomatically talk our way out of it. But I decided that my Evil nature was not to waste time, so while the Paladin was talking up a storm trying to do charisma checks and what have you... I just said "I casually wander behind the guard captain as Paladin is talking and then I pull my blade and run him through." Dice were rolled, the guard captain died and the fight was on.
Our Paladin guy (the actual player) sat there stunned not knowing what to do. I quickly finished off the guards with the help of our wizard while the Paladin and the other Good characters in the group didn't know what to do. Then the Paladin decided that he had to stick around and wait for more guards to show up so he could report the murder of these guards. So the wizard and I sauntered off into an alley and circled around to watch as the Paladin and the others got arrested for the murders I had committed. This totally twisted the entire campaign, as it split our group up and we ended up having a lot of fun finding a way to break our groupmates out of prison before they could be hung for killing a bunch of guards. Well I should say the Wizard and I had fun, since the others were in prison waiting to be rescued.
The Wizard and I ran around the town doing all sorts of nasty deeds, killing innocents and stealing stuff to get us into the prison. The Wizards alignment turned evil as well. Our Paladin player was quite upset when I killed his character too, since I couldn't have him at my back after he knew how much of a baddy I was. He had to re-roll a new character so he could be part of the now quite evil group we had become.
And now you know why many parents don't want their kids playing D&D :-) I wouldn't actually do anything like that kind of thing in Real Life, and normally I do enjoy being the Good Guy Hero. But I guess just then I wanted to see what it would be like to think like a real shmuck of a bad guy and not care. I don't think I really played a truely evil type character after that, but it was fun while it lasted.
I am definitely a carebear - over the years I have come more and more to prefer playing good-aligned characters (not necessarily lawful but always good).
Back from my first D&D days (even before AD&D) I have heard and been involved in many discussions on the topic of how adventurers make their livings through robbery and murder in these games - even the paladins. I have seen more than one paladin going through orc villages slaughtering the babies - since they would grow up to be evil best to rid the world of their filth now.
Given a fantasy universe where *all* members of certain races were by definition evil it makes perfect sense to slaughter them on sight. Genocide isn't an bad thing where the enemy isn't merely a race or species or faction whose aims oppose your own but is EVIL.
In your situation above I would have attacked your character without hesitation. Murder and mayhem are just *wrong* unless directed against those those that deserve it, either by their actions, by the actions of those they serve, or by their inherent nature.
I've always hated the D&D style 'Good' 'Evil' clear cut difference.
'Oh we can murder them all because they are Evil.
'What makes them evil?'
'They are Goblins, so they just are'
'let the mass murder commence...because it's not evil if we are the good guys right? It's ok to murder the Goblin babies because they are evil, that's why our Paladin doesn't lose his powers - it's his gods work.'
It's alright to be murder hobos as good guys, but suddenly when on a mission that involves saving someone and an evil guy might have valuable information to help 'woah!! You can't torture him, you are good! Torturing is against your alignment'
-----
As for Orcs having some hereditary disease, that is unfortunate - but it doesn't change the fact they are dangerous. But again, it is less about whether or not they are specifically evil and more about whether or not they are actively a danger
Yeah, deep topic, but one I think about a lot too. There is, of course, no such thing as fundamental good and evil. Good and evil are determined by people's actions and what motivates them. The Orc example is interesting, because who the "good guys" and "bad guys" are between Orcs and their Thronefastian Human neighbors really boils down to who did what to whom and when. Had Humans been existing peacefully in the region for many ages when one day the Orcs came in and attacked because they wanted the land for themselves? Or were the Orcs there first and the Humans were the ones who started the conflict because they wanted to build their capital on Orc land and felt perfectly entitled to slaughter the Orcish "vermin" who stood in their way? If the latter, then the Humans would be the evildoers, and we would only think they're the good guys because we feel a racial connection to them. I don't know the lore well enough to make a judgment about it, but I think the devil would be in those crucial details.
I also have never liked the idea of playing a truly evil character, and some races (say, Dark Elves from EQ, Orcs in Tolkien) were just written to be evil, pure and simple. The idea seems to be that being born into a certain race automatically fills one's heart with hate, which is ridiculous if one takes it seriously. I literally may not play as a Dark Myr, Ogre or Skar, depending on how they are written within the game. If the home city dialogue makes it clear that they are all just evil through and through, I can't really enjoy playing a character like that.
I also would love to see more of a separation between "darkness" and "evil" than we see in most games. I think it would be cool to be able to have a necromancer or dire lord who chooses to use his or her dark-based powers in noble ways. I would love to see a robust enough faction system that something like that could be a possibility.
I do enjoy and often choose to play evil aligned character. However from the D&D alignment system, the Lawfull Evil remain my prefered.
There are numerous possibilities of evil characters, but what define an evil character in the end is his deviant moral from "usual standard". While evil characters are often depicted as pure evil spreading their madness of some sort, this only concern one little slice of the great evil wheel. A character who's answer to aggression, restrain or diplomacy lies in violence is an evil character. A character who has little to no consideration in the life of others is an evil character.
Pantheon's ogre seems willingly based on an evil society, as they favor conquest, domination and war over other species and cultures over anything else.
The skar will surely be evil as they seem to simply care not about any neighbour and just slay or enslave them when they cross their path.
The betraying rogue is a classic example of a D&D group brought to mayhem by a player who's goal is to play against his own team, but that's only the selfish-discord-evil type, and not every alignment will betray an oath, an accord or a team of adventurer. They can share the same goal, and grand picture, but when the evil character will have to negociate he will choose the simplest way of killing what opposes him while other alignment will choose to go on diplomacy and avoid bloodshed of innocents.
MauvaisOeil said:I do enjoy and often choose to play evil aligned character. However from the D&D alignment system, the Lawfull Evil remain my prefered.
There are numerous possibilities of evil characters, but what define an evil character in the end is his deviant moral from "usual standard". While evil characters are often depicted as pure evil spreading their madness of some sort, this only concern one little slice of the great evil wheel. A character who's answer to aggression, restrain or diplomacy lies in violence is an evil character. A character who has little to no consideration in the life of others is an evil character.
Pantheon's ogre seems willingly based on an evil society, as they favor conquest, domination and war over other species and cultures over anything else.
The skar will surely be evil as they seem to simply care not about any neighbour and just slay or enslave them when they cross their path.
The betraying rogue is a classic example of a D&D group brought to mayhem by a player who's goal is to play against his own team, but that's only the selfish-discord-evil type, and not every alignment will betray an oath, an accord or a team of adventurer. They can share the same goal, and grand picture, but when the evil character will have to negociate he will choose the simplest way of killing what opposes him while other alignment will choose to go on diplomacy and avoid bloodshed of innocents.
I agree with your comments about Lawful Evil from D&D. It was just about the only way to play evil and still enjoy a group game. At least a Lawful Evil character would usually see the worth of grouping and trust even if their methods leave something to be desired. Even so, with Lawful Evil you're talking something like Hitler and his secret service. Is that really 'fun' if you role-play it well?
The betraying rogue was Neutral Evil at best and probably Chaotic Evil (as per D&D alignments) and, yeah, I just can't see how you could play a character like that and not end up solo real quick.
In EverQuest, though, if you picked a Dark Elf Necromancer, you were a religeous follower of the God of Hate and from a society that only respects power. How can you RP hate and domination and get on with even other Dark Elves in a group, never mind other races?
I'm not a 'serious' role-player in MMORPGs, but I enjoy it more if I at least stay in character and have some fun getting into the feel of it and acting some parts out. If I've played an 'evil' race in the past it's always been in the Drizzt Do'Urden style where I imagine myself to be a renegade subverting the evil from within, but even that doesn't tally too well with maintaining ties in order to train and shop in your home city.
I've said in another thread that I'd like to see evil races have somewhere to train and shop in other regions, but in role-playing terms I'd like to be being evil be even more difficult that it was for Iksar in EQ.
Everything gets solved when one realizes that chaotic evil can simply never lead to a creation of a race or a civilisation .
The reason is simple - the natural selection makes sure that a group of chaotic evil individuals goes extinct in 1 generation . This doesn't preclude the existence of chaotic evil individuals (our own serial killers belong to that category) but precisely their existence is only possible if they are an extremely small minority within a majority that allows their survival . So the meaningful difference is not really between good and evil but between chaos and order .
The only evil that is able to create a race or a civilisation is lawful evil . But then the difference between this lawful evil race and a lawful good race is mostly a matter of perspective . If their behaviour is objectively observed, it appears that there are few significant difefrences even if such differences do exist . What defines them as separate for practical purposes is mostly is the fact that they are in war because of religious, ideological or racial diffrences .
Chaotic good is allowed in large numbers only because chaotic good people don't murder their companions and fellows while chaotic evil people do . That's why I never had any problem with evil races or civilisations like Neriak or Oggok . For me they were simply composed of lawful evil crushing majority with a very small chaotic evil minority which, btw, they didn't like at all either because chaotic evil is disruptive to any community regardless whether it is good or evil .
So then and regardless whether I RP or not, I have no problem to slaughter the ennemy in an MMORPG and belong to a good race because my society is at war with the ennemy and it is in order that I do so for my kin , my friends and fellows too . I certainly don't do so because of some label . This is btw what most soldiers report from their experience in real wars - they mostly didn't fight and kill for their country or an ideology (even if some did), they fought for the guy next them because he was as much the barrier against death as they were for him . Now even if the label good and evil is much a question of convention, there are still some objective differences which allow to distinguish them . An evil society could consider torture or children killing as justified because of "overiding" considerations - this typical behaviour is generally called "the end justifies the means" - while a good society would ban certain means regardless of the ends . This difference is basically what allows to objectively distinguish a good society/race from an evil one .
Personally I find it odd how many people and things we kill in MMORPGs, it is a good thing there are respawns heh. VIOLENCE IS NOT THE ANSWER! Oh wait I need xp...better slaughter another kobold den lol. I have no issue with the evil factions in MMORPGs because in my view there will always be those who want to gain power at the expense of others. The main problem I have is that most MMORPGs do not give you the option to be peaceful it truly does seem as though every conflict is solved with violence. Vanguard was an extremely rare exception with the dilpomacy sphere. In most MMOs at best you can roll a healer but you are still in groups that are killing everything in sight.
Being the bad guy is fun sometimes but the questions you raise are good ones. Being a jerk to actual players is not the same thing as being a jerk to NPCs.
I quite often RP as an evil character and have been doing so for ~30+ years now (damn, that long?!?). Amidst our group, we always dealt with it by ensuring beforehand, via the DM, that we were not of some diametrically opposed religion/clan/guild etc to the other characters. These things were more the driving force for how we RPed our characters rather than just pure alignment.
I recall on one occasion playing a LE anti-paladin amongst the usual Rangers, Mages, Fighter etc. The campaign ran over several years with the main aim of setting up a fiefdom in the wilderness and eventually expanding to become a Kingdom. Being LE, I played my character more like Palpatine. A slow and low build up to gathering power and bringing in a Theocracy of weal and woe - gathering friends close to me before finally showing my true colours. The rest of the group was doing it to conquer the hostile wilds and bring peace and the rule of law to the region. Only one of those aims suited my character, but it allowed us to work together for all that time. Only one of the other five party members couldn't reconcile the fact that the Kingdom they had worked so long to forge was now being ruled by an iron fist that crushed disent swiftly and harshly upon discovery. He left the group (OOC only) and set up his own independent barony. Sadly, a few months later he died falling off a high tower after attempting to commit suicide by shooting himself in the back of the head with a crossbow bolt. My character wept openly at the state funeral that was held in his honor.
I agree with you disposalist in that characters that are played purely based on alignment are rather one dimensional (the stupid evil trope), but those played as a more fleshed out character can be a joy. On the flipside, playing a one dimensional good character is just as unappealing to me.
I have mixed feelings about good and evil. If I play a star wars game i gotta be good. But like EQ, well, I had a good ranger, and a very nasty SK. The SK even had a head collection, I wanted at least 1 head of each race in the game, it was a lot of work getting them all but eventually i did. I enjoyed it, it was fun, and it gave me that extra thing to do that didn't make the game stale, i c ould either group and get some exp, or i could go head hunting.
I don't role play a lot, but if i do, i do it with something that usually doesn't involve anyone else. Meaning something i can do solo.
Good... Evil... two different sides of the same coin.
Is an orc butchering little kids evil? What if the kids were poisoning their food and eating their newborns?
Is a Cleric healing the wounded good? What if they wounded is in a contant state of flesh ripping torture?
Is a Bard laughing and singing to a crowd good? What if crowd was all deaf? is it cruel?
Im my opinion the story behind an action is what makes it good or evil. Things are not inherently good or evil, they are MADE good or evil by their surroundings.
To sum it up, I do not play good, or evil, I play to my surroundings. Which guess would be ... Neutral? :)