Topic: What is "evil" in Rolemaster?

[David Johansen]

Or if he treated people like things it would be an improvement

[Cory Magel]

This whole discussion kinda reminds me of why we generally don't allow evil characters in our campaigns.

The two exceptions being if the campaign is entirely non-serious (ala Paranoid style) or if it is one of those last fight of the last session "Ah ha! I am not who you thought I was..." type things.

As Marc says in a way; Evil in origin, as an object, etc (i.e. a demon for example) is largely fixed in system mechanics terms.  Evil in practice (i.e. what an NPC or PC actually does) or more open to perception.

[Marc R]

That being Evil from our perspective in the post modern world and here on this board generally western European culture (You are essentially defining Evil as sociopathy). We may agree, but we share (generally) the same upbringing and perspective point.

I've played RM with a Cthulhu spin, and in those instances "Evil" was too utterly alien to even fit that form.

In the end, if evil is big E it's Axiomatic.

"What is Evil?"

"It's Evil"

"Why is Cthulhu Evil?"

"Because Cthulhu is Evil."

"Why are Cthulhu cultists Evil?"

"Because they are associated with Cthulhu."

I suspect, when it's Axiomatic, it's capitol E evil, when you need to justify it, even with something as simple and clear as "Sociopathic behavior" you're trying to justify little e-vil as big E-vil. This is attempting to apply modern logic to a non modern set of concepts. Most pre moderns would find difficulty understanding why anyone would find this question complicated. And E-vil and G-ood tend to appear most in pre-modern fantasy games.

Using a pre-modern western european example:

"Why is the Devil evil?" is "Because Evil is the Devil"

"Why is God good?" is "Because Good is God"

Evil acts and behaviors are "Like the devil" or "Would please the devil" much as good acts are "Like god" or "would please god". . .they are self defining logical loops. If evil is post modern subjective, it's just an opinion of the person saying it, if it's pre-modern objective, then it's a self defining criteria in and of itself and requires no further definition.

[pastaav]

Actually I would not say that everyone must consider themselves good in a fantasy setting. It might be so, but it must not be so. For instance we might have a society that consider themselves superior and having a divine mandate to rule and abuse everyone, including their own members. The crucial feeling in this case would be that the society consider themselves to be right and everyone that don't agree with their point of view being heretics.

To generalize I think we can say that each character/society need one value word like good/right/merciful/strong that they consider to be vital and they consider themselves to be following.

As a side note it is good thought exercise to think about if the setting can include a character who believes in moral nihilism or not. In some settings this character works while in many others such a character would disturb the narrative of gaming experience.

[intothatdarkness]

I think Evil in this case really breaks down to the source of a spellcaster's power (at least that's how I use it in my campaign). One of the basic premises of my world is that there was a planar "break" over a thousand years ago that let a series of new "gods" into the world. One of them represents the demi-plane of Chaos, and looks at my world as a food source (more or less). One of his tactics is to power Evil spell users (meaning that they have to enter into a pact with that deity in order to cast their spells and are classed as Tainted). But he also exerts influence through Tainted professions (Necromancer and Sorcerer are two examples). These characters are "safe" for the first few levels, but after that the "bad god" starts exerting his influence.

Obviously there's also the philosophical version of Evil (and that applies to non-casters as well as casters), but in spell terms I make a pretty clear distinction based on the source of the caster's power. The "bad god" in my campaign USES Evil to further his own goals, but may not necessarily be Evil on his own.

[GrumpyOldFart]

Exactly, there's a theological "evil" and a socio-philosophical, behavioral "evil", and the two are not necessarily the same.

[Marc R]

Exactly, and the difference between the two, is IMO the difference between e-vil and E-vil.

If the evil is subjectively defined by mortals, i.e. sociopolitical evil ala "Nazis are evil" or "Cannibals are evil" or whatever, it's e-vil.

If the evil is objectively defined as a force in play, like gravity, i.e. objective evil ala "Unlife is evil" or "The Devil is Evil", or whatever, it's E-vil.

[intothatdarkness]

Exactly, and the difference between the two, is IMO the difference between e-vil and E-vil.

If the evil is subjectively defined by mortals, i.e. sociopolitical evil ala "Nazis are evil" or "Cannibals are evil" or whatever, it's e-vil.

If the evil is objectively defined as a force in play, like gravity, i.e. objective evil ala "Unlife is evil" or "The Devil is Evil", or whatever, it's E-vil.

Quite so. My campaign went so far as to divide Undead between the Evil versions (as in those that were created by Necromancers, Evil Clerics, or through ritual such as Chaotic Warriors) and non-Evil versions (ghosts and the like). Obviously something like a Liche who had been an Evil Magician would be Evil, but for the most part characters couldn't assume that undead were automatically Evil. One party even learned some crucial adventure information by interrogating a ghost (before it failed its "reality check" and realized it was dead...).

This distinction also allowed my "bad god" to make heavy use of the e-vil types wandering around (assassins, Nightblades, misguided or ambitious Magicians, and so on) without them crossing into E-vil. Great misdirection, but it also allowed some of those who were "used" to come around and be of great use to the party. Having E-vil also allows for the creation of witch hunter-type professions (my campaign had the Chaos Hunter, which was distinct to one race), which can be interesting. It would also be possible, I think, to have a witch hunter "seduced" to the E-vil side (through Taint in my world) as they perhaps started drawing power from the "wrong" source.

My campaign had a single E-vil god (the chaotic plane fellow), but a number of darker gods (one for night, another for battle rage, and so on) who were not E-vil in and of themselves. They did, however, represent the darker aspects of human nature and as such their followers could occasionally be lured away by the "bad god." This could happen through a pact (read lesser Taint) that over time grows into the character having greater spellcasting power (and thus more obligation to the "bad god" and less to his original deity).

It made for interesting games to be sure. Especially with a Chaos Hunter in the party.

[RandalThor]

Evil is taking the last Twinkie and putting the box back in the cupboard.

[arakish]

Evil is taking the last Twinkie and putting the box back in the cupboard.

Exactly, and I have been guilty of this many numerous times .

rmfr

[David Johansen]

you're going to the special hell

[arakish]

Evil is also using all the tissue paper and not replacing the empty roll.

rmfr

[VladD]

interestingly nobody references a thematic work of fiction; named Lord of the Rings; that most of us are intimately familiar with. Here Prof. Tolkien shines a light on the true motive behind all evil: Greed. All the bad things that can be done are a function of Desire. Looking at this, and not seeing a flaw in this thinking, I think evil CAN be quantified. The ultimate desire: owning the world and doing with it what you want is just the final thing any ultimate villain can desire.

The opposite is true as well: if greed = Evil, then giving = Good, and this holds true as well: Paladins sacrificing life and limb to keep the demons from entering this world, Sages spending decades studying a disease or curse to lift it, and player characters working together to finish the mission.

That is why evil parties cannot exist and why evil is bound to lose... unless in real life

On the issue of evil magic: It is not like there is good power and bad power, it is what is done with it that makes it good or evil. Just as with electricity it doesn't matter if it is negative or positive (yeah sorry) because it is an endless chain that is supplied from either end... Whether you plug in your blender, or your cattle prod torture device, the power behind it is the same.

This said: I kinda like iconic games, where the PCs might have a problem defining evil at first, but when it is lit up, they can go in to destroy it whichever way they can. I know my players like it that way and it makes for excellent gaming, but I can see why other people like to see a whole lot of grey area, because that is how it is in real life. Big companies are not all Sauronic entities bent on corruption and  total destruction, they just want to make money, and this kind of greed is fine, as long as they are giving back in the process; a product that is worth it.

Funny that the last jokers were in a way right (You twinky and toilet roll bandits!) 

[GrumpyOldFart]

I think evil CAN be quantified. The ultimate desire: owning the world and doing with it what you want is just the final thing any ultimate villain can desire.

In other words, treating people as if they were merely things. 

[Marc R]

The tolkien example is actually a perfect example.

Greed, envy, all those deadly sins make you e-vil, but Sauron is E-vil.

A lot of things in ME are described as bad, or evil, but few are what Sauron became.

So E-vil that his influence corrupted the other ring wearers and made them E-vil. . . .So E-vil he was able to corrupt via the palantír. Sauron was so E-vil that association with him twisted minds, bodies and souls. . . .too much Sauron was visibly bad for you.

I'd agree that greed is a core ingredient of e-vil, but Corruption seems to be the defining factor of E-vil. . .it's the opposite of greed in a way.  . . . true E-vil is eager to share, it's just that the deal never turns out to be as good as it looked in the commercial.

[markc]

  IMHO it is the lengths you go to to obtain your Desire that can be a measure of wither you are Evil or not.




VladD;
  In my game in fact "where" you power comes from does in fact betray a good or evil trait but this is not RAW.


MDC

[VladD]

I think there is no difference between Sauron, or just some beggar of the streets, in that they both desire something. The only difference being that Sauron, due to being a lesser spirit of power, he has a mental effect on his surroundings. This effect is projecting his own desire on others and corrupting them with his depravity and darkness of his desires.

Of course he sees everything and everyone as his toys, but this is just one aspect of his desire. Its the desire itself that is important. Since he is the most powerful being in Middle Earth (barring maybe Ungoliant) it is his right to own everything. Of course without his One Ring, he first needs his Ring to win back his former kingdom so everything gets focused on getting the ring back, to the exclusion of everything else!

This is just an example of course how e-vil and E-vil are actually the same, except maybe in scope. I feel a beggar needs to focus more on his next meal than winning the world kingdom or he will be dead in a matter of weeks, while Sauron has unlimited time (or so he thinks) to reach his goals toward world domination.

Then finally there is the depth of depravity and cruelty someone is prepared to go plumbing to reach their goals and slake their desires. Sauron, being an evil overlord with PLENTY of minions too scared to cross his desires, might have a little edge over the previously mentioned beggar to get what he wants. Its probably the amount of cruelty and distancing that people mistake for being the measure between e-vil and E-vil, but its more likely in the resources of the greedy one, IMHO.

[Marc R]

The thing is that the begger staring at you eating, who is filled with the urge to run up and steal your bread, will not detect as "Evil" to a detect evil spell.

A begger who's an agent of Sauron, who's spent time in Mordor in his master's presence being conditioned to act as Sauron's agent. . .will detect as "Evil" to a detect evil spell.

That being my point, that banal, commonplace everyday badness is just e-vil at worst. . .E-vil is something with a more objective reality.

It's not a scaling issue, with cheating on a test and stealing bread on the low end and genocide and slavery at the high end. . .those are touch points on the scale of mortal e-vil. But even participating in genocide doesn't cross over into the realms of E-vil.

E-vil is more on the "I am in league with the monsters from the other dimension that want to come eat our souls" or "I am part of the pact that aims to overturn death and unleash the Unlife" It's palpable, elemental evil.

You can't collect e-vil in a bottle, but an object can be filled with E-vil. . .it's a subjective turned into an objective tangible thing.

[yammahoper]

These are nice speeches, but I would rather see an approach in posting thatkeeps in mind how would I i structure a rule set in RM dealing with and defining evil?

I hope the discussion turns towards producing some results; i.e. how should the rule set in RM define evil and what should the game mechanics look like?

[Marc R]

Evil and Of Darkness are defined, as per above. . .the problem lies in the fact that in the end it's game world defined.

In games with the big E-vil, the various detect or affect evil spells should generally target such absolute objective E-vil and ignore mortal scale e-vil.

In a game with no demons, no devil, no undead, no Unlife, no Sauron, and nothing at all like them. . .then perhaps the "Detect Evil" spell will work on serial killers, death camp guards and similar manifestations of the little e-vil.

Either way, I don't think Detect Evil or "Inflict a Holy A Critical on all evil targets in a 30' radius" should target hungry beggars who'd steal your food if given a chance.