| From: | Avenger <Avenger@*******.DEMON.CO.UK> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Evil Campaign |
| Date: | Sun, 18 May 1997 01:29:44 +0100 |
<runefo@***.UIO.NO> rambled on endlessly about Evil Campaign
>Avenger wrote:
>> True evil, is beyond the ability of most people to either determine,
>> comprehend or emulate. In my opinion it usually comes across as a poor
>> attempt to gross out the other players, or in senseless, pointless,
>> seamless and useless acts of random violence, that hold no purpose other
>> than to fulfill a poor idea of evil.
>
>So what you say is, define Evil. Then we might know what an evil
>campaign is.
Not necessarily "define" evil as such. There are so many possible
definitions of it, even if one ignores the obvious biblical connotations
in the word.
>You touch on the truth - there is no such thing as
>'evil'. Evil has been explained to death, understood to death. Evil
>is dead; its place is taken by emotional misfits, sociopaths,
>psychological cases and unhappy childhoods. No act cannot be
>explained, rationalized. The 'evils' of persons as well as the evils
>of society.
Agreed. This is something that makes the subject a little ambiguous. As
I said, there are many different and sometimes contradictory definitions
of evil, that it is difficult to put it into an accurate context without
actually confronting what is essentially a mythical concept. Evil as
such is different in everybody's mind. What may seem an evil act in one
game, say bombing a childrens home to rid the city of a drug den in the
basement, would be defined as a good act in other games, the drug
factory has been destroyed, which means that particular supply route is
ended, and the dead children are merely statistics in the battle against
the greater bad. It is this sort of definition in context that helps to
confuse the issue even further. Players playing inately evil characters
is something else that can't really be transposed into effective role-
playing. Evil will not necessarily distrust others of similar
inclination, I read here from someone that none of the team trusted the
others, yet respected their skills and abilities, that's not a
particularly good definition of an evil character. One of the favourite
media definitions of evil, is Adolf Hitler, yet for most of his period
as German premier, he was intimately trusted by his compatriots and a
great percentage of the country. he was doing a lot of good for
Germany, and brought a lot of pride and respect back to a people at a
time when they needed it most, in retrospect much of what he and his
commanders did, is considered evil. There are other examples throughout
history from a variety of different sources. I don't feel that the
concept of evil is something that a roleplaying game can allow in any
form of accuracy when portrayed by players. It is possible for a GM to
portray it through either a corporate or individual front, but again,
simple terrorism or murder, random torture of selected personnel, isn't
in itself evil. In this case, it would be necessary to seriously
consider what would constitute evil acts, and then find a way of
incorporating those acts into a game world, without seeming ridiculous.
An evil person can be one of the nicest people you could ever meet, a
person extremely considerate of others feelings, and doing much for
society at large, yet in the long run, that persons aims are ultimately
evil in the sense of a religious or social definition.
>In fantasy literature, evil is almost without fail a personified
>force. A person dedicating himself to that force gains from it,
>gainst power or influence by each act of 'evil' he does. In this
>genre, evil is both a mean to an end and an end in itself. In this
>genre, then, evil makes sense, and thus a struggle against evil makes
>sense. It is far more gratifying to struggle against the evil,
>demonic wizard than a man that was molested as a child and as a
>consequence does 'bad' things. It is also so much easier.
Agreed. There's something somehow weak in the concept of a powerful NPC
who is wanted in 15 states and 12 countries for various acts of
attrocity, being explained away as a "battered child". It's far more
satisfying to denote that opponent as "evil". I don't have a problem
with players opposing evil, I just don't believe that in game terms they
can act or define evil. Unless the player(s) are already an active
participant in evil, and not just pretend Devil worshipping or somesuch
silly behaviour, then most people would be incapable of emulating the
mindset of a truly evil person. The GM would also be incapable of doing
so, but could certainly design a person who fits the bill. Players
would not, by their own actions be able to act in such a manner. They
lack the power and versatility within the game world, and as I mentioned
before, will normally reduce to "gross out".
>This boils down to the simple fact.. SR is a world with evil as a
>force. Aztech blood magic,
Blood magic again is not necessarily evil in itself. The purposes to
which it is put can be described as evil, the sacrifice of living souls
can be determined as evil, but depending on the culture, it may not be
interpreted as such. For instance, the Aztech, Mayan and Inca tradition
of sacrificial offerings, was to appease the gods, and repay them for
the blood the gods offered when they created man. The concept was not
based in evil, but worship of essentially "good" deities. It was
interpreted as evil, by Christian onlookers, a seperate religion that
didn't condone sacrifice, yet in many circumstances practiced it anyway.
>the Enemy, Wraiths, and the bug spirits
>(Well, they're simply alien, not evil, according to the book, but
>close enough) all are examples of this. But 'evil' only makes sense
>in a context with these 'evil' forces - if not, it is rather pitiful.
Agreed. In order to visualise "evil" it becomes necessary to make some
form of connection with acts, behaviour, beliefs and logic, otherwise
evil becomes a concept with no grounding in reason, and as you say,
appears rather pitiful. In much the same way as a bunch of players who
randomly kill for the fun of it, rip off stores/garages/bars, shoot
little old ladies, stomp kids, indulge in extortion, etc etc.
Eventually they will lose direction and indulge in seamless acts of
violence for no purpose other than it "appears the thing to do". Evil
in any context will always have a design and a purpose. That purpose
may be grandiose, or very simple, but it will always be present, it
could be something as ambitious as genocide, or somthing as simple as
self-advancement to the highest level in that persons chosen field, at
any cost. Not something a PC is any use for.
>Consider, also, the fact that most truly evil aspects of SR is
>safely contained within the magical, and thus fantasy, aspects of
>SR.
Something that is, in some ways a mistake. Evil does not necessarily
need to be limited in this fashion, after all, we have "defined" evil in
mankind's history, the British treatment of the Boers, the Nazis during
WW2, the Japanese labour camps, The American destruction of the Native
American races, some of the more despotic African nations. None of
which involved mysticism. For this type of mystical connection, there
are many religions across the world that have "evil" contained within
them, and can be used for reference, but as SR doesn't have deities
wandering around in it, these links become theoretical rather than
actual. Another side of it is the western view of the Middle East, many
see that regime as evil, it has extremely strict lines that are drawn,
and strictures that cannot be opposed. Yet, in the countries where this
is an everyday aspect, few see the wrong in it, and interpret western
freedom as evil, for the simple reason it appears so ultimately
anarchistic to them.
>Playing an Evil Campaign(TM) would then probably involve one or
>more of the players involved in some of this. It could easily get
>munchkin, or ugly, or both.
Probably both.
>I might add that I liked the idea (don't remember whose) about the
>players not playing *EVIL* guys, but bad guys. The black hats.
>The guys that oppose the good guys in the story. There's room for
>some cool gaming there, if they put some work in it.
Bad guys, is a far more attractive prospect for role-playing. There are
many examples of "great" bad guys in movies and literature. Henry Fonda
in Once Upon A Time in the West, Alan Rickman, in Robin Hood and Die
Hard. Rutger Hauer in The Hitcher and Bladerunner. As for literature,
there are way to many examples to limit it to a few here. Bad guys as
PCs I can live with, and have had one or two in my games. When played by
a single player, and played intelligently, they can add whole new
dimensions to the game, and create a considerable number of
opportunities for role playing within a group. The only thing that the
GM has to watch out for, is the "Reservoir Dogs" attitude, where the
players suddenly think it's really cool to just shoot people for the fun
of it, and instigate regular blood baths. Bad Guys aren't just killers,
they can be _very_ interesting and enjoyable characters.
I suppose what I'm saying (albeit a bit long winded) is that evil and
"Bad guys" have a purpose, they have a reason for being, and a reason
for the things they do, every act they undertake can be explained in the
context of their ultimate aim. Without that purpose and direction, it's
just a boring blood fest with no grounding in logic or reason.
**--**
My opinion is *my* opinion, and not that of others, the above is my
opinion and should not be taken as a personal attack or as an accurate
definition of the human condition. It is and always will be, simply, my
opinion.
--
__ \ | \ __
| | _` | __| | / _ \ \ / _ \ __ \ _` | _ \ __|
| | ( | | < ___ \ \ / __/ | | ( | __/ |
____/ \__,_|_| _|\_\ _/ _\ \_/ \___|_| _|\__, |\___|_|
A Dark Shadow in a Dark World |___/
Web page at: http://www.shalako.demon.co.uk
