Food for Thought (Good and Evil)
Food for Thought We've seen a number of people - especially game designers it seems - think Good is uninteresting or weak. That evil is a lot more interesting for game play. Whether this be character classes, abilities and options, or simply entire races. Monster manuals? Filled with evil stuff. Opponents and foils? Evil. Who get all the cool powers? Evil. Who performs world-shaking magic? Evil.
In most adventures, Evil is rarely the underdog. The PCs are left scrabbling to deal with whatever plot Evil has come up with. We find this boring. Very, very boring. Time and time again it's 'the weak heroes have to band together to stop the all-powerful bad guy'.
Here's the thing. It's unrealistic. It's a tired trope. It's overused.
We want to see Good creatures given the same treatment Evil creatures are. We want to see powers and abilities given to Good creatures that are on par with the Evil creatures that are depicted. And we want to see these done not as 'something the heroes can ally with', but 'something you need to deal with to get what you need done', and 'here's the tools to be a ass-kicker for Good'. We want to see Good get the world-shaking power. The Good creatures depicted in the books could be on the hero's side. Or not. They might have a completely different agenda.
Because Good doesn't mean Nice. Just because you're Good and someone else is Good doesn't mean you'll get along. It doesn't mean you'll have the same goals. It doesn't mean you're going to cooperate. A Good person can still be flawed. They can be short-sighted. Or aggressive. Or vengeful. They can make mistakes, or act on bad information. This doesn't make them 'less good'.
Motivation. Why are they doing what they're doing?
We're tired of people saying Good is boring. No, it isn't. The people who have no imagination are what makes Good boring. The people who decide that Good must be perfectly Good to be considered Good. That to be Good you must be a paragon of all that is Good, without any flaws in your Goodness. This is bullshit. That's just like this idea that to be Evil you must constantly do Evil things and never falter from the Evil path.
That's called being "stupid". And one-note.
We're tired of Good being the underdog. Put them on the same level as the Evil folk. Make the battles more equal. Or hell, put Good in the position of power. The heroes are on the side of Good - but the question becomes 'how far should Good go to accomplish their goals'?
That Time I Reincarnated as a Slime (Spoilers) We've been watching this anime - the most Shinto anime we've ever seen. The main character simply wants to live an easy life. He wants a peaceful life for everyone around him. Given a chance, he'll try to talk, make peace, deescalate confrontations. He's also powerful as hell. If he's in a conflict though, it's pretty much one-sided. Anything he comes across he'll most likely blow through with little or no effort.
He falls under 'nice'. But when he has to be not nice, it makes sense, and it doesn't make him 'less good'. When someone he admired was going out of control from the spirit inside her, he severs the connection between her and the spirit. The spirit, he simply 'swallows' and puts into storage. It lives. The girl, as she's dying, asks him to devour her - she doesn't want to have the world claim her.
He does. And when she dies, he's effectively crafted a Heaven within himself for her. She sees those she had lost, she sees her mother, she dies in peace (and visits him from time to time from the afterlife).
"What? He swallowed a sentient? Evil!" No, no it isn't.
When he faces the Orc Lord, who becomes a full-blown demonic being, who turns his entire race into cannibalistic horrors that gain the powers of anything they eat, he takes it on. And to put an end to the war he eats the orc lord.
Which allows him to see how the orc lord came to be. What caused the entire war to happen. So what does he do? He tells the orc lord he'll take on the sins of the orc lord and all his people - that they have been absolved of the deeds they've done.
And then he gives the orc lord a paradise to walk into, to find peace and be with his family and those who were lost.
But wait? He ate a sentient! Evil, right? No. Motivation. To save lives. Then to absolve the soldiers of sin. Then give the person a peaceful rest. None of that is Evil.
He uses his power to bring peace, he accepts responsibility for his actions, and his decisions are aimed at being moral. He's not perfect, but he's definitely not evil, and his actions are not evil either. This is what makes him an interesting character. Time and time again he aims for the peaceful route with any that he comes across.
The goblins he's sworn to look after are being attacked? The most aggressive opponents die instantly, and then he gives a warning to the survivors. "You can leave." He doesn't hold any ill will towards them - if they're not attacking his people, he's not going to harm them.
But when an army comes in and sets fire to his town and slaughters its inhabitants? He seethes with rage. He tracks down the invading army, and kills every single last one of them. He spares the king, and the cardinal and everyone else dies.
His reasoning for this? He needs 10k+ souls to evolve. Why does he need to evolve? To raise every single one of his people who'd died, to bring them back to life. He puts an absolute end to the threat to his people, works to undo the harm done.
And then sets about overthrowing the corrupt monarchy that started the war, finding a good person to become the ruler.
When the person behind the scenes starts another war? He sends in his troops. And anyone that can be spared on the opposing side is spared. You don't kill who you don't need to kill.
Then he hunts down the person pulling the strings and exacts justice, because this is the person who set about trying to get tens of thousands of people killed for his own benefit, without any care about who dies.
Vengeance? Yep. The death of thousands? Yes. Is he still Good? Definitely. His goals aren't changed. He wishes those around him to live happy, peaceful lives. His goal is to seek peace, and to see to the needs of those who have put their faith in him - and by the end of all this that goal extends to everyone beyond his borders as well.
The fact he killed 10k people, that he killed the one behind it (in a sanctioned duel, and also with the permission of the council this guy was part of), doesn't detract from the goals and the fact that he was pushed into a corner.
Good doesn't mean Weak. It doesn't mean you're a pushover. It doesn't mean that you will always aim for a peaceful solution - it means you're looking for the path of least harm, but you don't have to be stupid about it. You can seek revenge. You can punish those who have done wrong, and you'll still be Good.
Good vs Good - Conflict And here's the thing. Good people don't need to get along because they're Good. That's unrealistic. The culture, the faith, the traditions of one Good society doesn't need to line up with another Good society. They can have differing views, those views may be unreconcilable. That doesn't make them any less Good. And this is the kind of conflict that PCs can be drawn into.
You're part of a powerful kingdom with a Good ruler, and most of the military and those who can make the decisions are Good as well.
"Huh. We're about to throw down with this rival kingdom and destroy it."
You can be pretty sure the ruler and his troops are justified in this task. But how does the character feel about it? Do they look for another way to get this done without death?
The World's Greatest Assassin Another anime, an assassin is reincarnated with a simple task. Assassinate the Hero after they've saved the world. Why? Because the Hero will become corrupt and destroy the world afterwards.
The assassin was a cold-hearted killer in the other world. (we're going to go with Neutral, not Neutral Evil. He held no malice, and he wouldn't kill anyone he wasn't designated to kill. He had a strict moral code - but not to the point where he was Lawful. And with his trainee, he tried to teach her how to survive - putting her well being over his own. Thus, not Evil). When he was told who he had to kill and why, he asked if he would be allowed to try to circumvent this doom without killing the Hero.
And after he reincarnated? He was born in a house of assassins and trained. And he resolved to, as an assassin, only take contracts where he felt the target needed to be assassinated - for the good of the people in the kingdom he lived in. To ensure peace and the well being of the folk. If he was given the task, he first checked for himself to see if the target was deserving of death.
He's not Evil. In fact, he may even be considered Good, because he's aiming for the well being and health of the people around him - teaching techniques to ensure life, happiness, and health to the folk in his family's domain.
Good is Complicated.
It's easy to depict Evil. "Someone who puts their own desires over the well being of others." That's pretty simple. You can add nuance to it. Give motivations. And if those motivations and the methods used aren't totally self-serving, they just might not be Evil.
This is what makes Good interesting.
Because Good requires nuance, otherwise it's meaningless.
You get those people who believe that paladins are all about slaughter everything evil, or that to be Good you must be a paragon of goodness, who wouldn't hurt anyone and who are pacifists.
Yeah. No. Unrealistic.
Evil Races and Kingdoms
And you know what? We're tired of how in D&D tieflings are given all the love and aasimar aren't, because tieflings are seen as 'demonic touched and thus cool' while aasimar are 'good, so boring'. Bull crap. We're annoyed that there's pages and pages on demons and devils and their followers with all the cool powers, but not on archons and angels, or deva, or their followers and their cool powers.
Or, you know, how there's evil elementals, but far less good ones, or evil fae, but far less good fae. The undead are depicted as universally evil, but ... you know what? Why can't there be good undead? How about ghosts who want to help people? Revenants who have sworn to protect and serve, and will do so until the end of time? The wraith who's sworn to ensure the safety of their living descendents from harm? Or undead tasked with protecting the bodies of those they were buried among, to ensure that the dead aren't desecrated?
And here's the thing. For a society (or hell, a world) to function? The majority of the forces at play are not going to be evil. Selfishness doesn't help a society function as much as cooperation and empathy. This is why "Chaotic Evil" societies, such as the drow, are a joke.
An entire kingdom where damn near everyone's Chaotic Evil? Chaotic, as in "the rights and freedom of the individual means more than the laws and needs of the society.", Evil, as in "my desires and needs are far more important than the needs and well being of those around me." Very much the 'might makes right', and 'me before all others'.
How do you get a society out of that? It's very much a disregard for rules and regulations, blended with a complete lack of empathy or care for the suffering of others. "I've got mine and screw the rest." Do you think an entire population of these people are going to function as a society?
Here's a hint. If there's customs and laws, it isn't Chaotic. It's at the very least Neutral. ("I will follow the customs and laws of society, to the point where I'm inconvenienced. Then I'll consider disobeying them.") If there's a system for cooperation and ensuring that the population thrives and is at least to some extent reasonably content? Not Evil. Again, Neutral. ("The needs and well being of others is of some importance, up until I, myself, am inconvenienced or harmed, in which case I may just let them suffer.")
Slaves? Probably not. First and foremost, it's horribly inefficient, and in the long run is more of an expense than a benefit. You'll want willing people who do it for pay and look after their own upkeep, rather than slaves who you need to feed, shelter, and look after. An economy built on slavery can't last, because the slave population grows over time and will at some point outnumber the owners.
Then of course, you'll need the guards who watch over the slaves, which you need to pay - or at least to provide food, shelter, and upkeep for. And the larger the slave population, the more guards you need to keep an eye on them, so that expense is going up. Oh, and if you are severe about discipline or willing to kill / let slaves die? Well, then you have less workforce, so less gets done.
And are you going to trust slaves (or Chaotic Evil people) to handle planting crops, tending to them, growing them, and harvesting them? How about building your homes and paving your streets? Are you going to trust them as merchants, vendors, and shop owners?
No.
This entire idea that there's entire races of evil creatures with Free Will simply doesn't make any sense. And here's the thing: there is absolutely no reason for a species to be evil to be adversarial. None. At all. It's a tired trope that needs to be put to pasture.
The only reason it exists is to allow the hero to do whatever they want with no guilt. It allows PCs to commit genocide with a clear conscience. That's all it is. "Well, they're absolutely evil and they don't have any redeeming qualities, they can't be trusted at all, so we can slaughter them as we please because if we spare them they'll stab us in the back."
And it supports colonialism. "We're going into the wilderness where there's evil races. Rather than try to understand them we'll cut them down and take their loot in the name of whi-err... in the name of Go-... umm... in the name of the human race (oh dear). We want to claim their land for our kingdom, so that our people, who aren't savages (oops), can settle it, because our way is better than their way, and we know better.
It lets players feel good about playing, essentially evil people. It allows them to justify these actions as "good", because the enemy are painted as "other", and laid out as unquestionably evil.
It's incredibly shallow. It's definitely questionable. You want opponents? Rival empires. Some other nation has risen, and believes in strength as power. They have a military culture, and they believe they've got a divine mandate or have been wronged by your kingdom in the past, which justifies their attack on you. Congrats. Or there may be a famine, low resources, overpopulation, or conflicting customs. There's scads of reasons to go to war, to have enemies, and none of it requires there to be an evil force involved.
It also allows for nuance. You go walking into orc territory. There's an orc village. And guess what? Not every man, woman, and child is evil! You want to go and slaughter civilians? Guess what, you're certainly not Good.
But, if they spot you? They'll call the guards, and you're going to be chased. Because you're the enemy. You aren't evil - but that doesn't matter. You could be a very legitimate threat. Conflict! Moral choice! Or, you know what? They simply might not trust you. If you're not armed to the teeth, boast massive arcane powers of destruction, and aren't openly hostile - they may either ignore / avoid you, or simply be reluctant to deal with you (but still do so - they need money just as much as everyone else).
Or hey, in times of peace, you can see them coming into your cities for trade. Perhaps the citizens of your kingdom don't like or trust them. There's tension. Sometimes violence may break out. And what do you do if it's one of your people instigating it, not the outsider? Conflict! Moral choices!
And hey, can evil people be in charge? Of course. Can you have corrupt politicians or soldiers? Of course. But an entire people being evil? Ehhh, not with a society you aren't. It just won't hold up. Because here's the thing. If these people have free will, they have the ability to choose. And if they have the ability to choose, then the entire population isn't going to be evil. Or Good. Or Lawful. Or Chaotic.
That's not how free will works. Now, the environment can put stressors on a population which leans them a certain way, but that doesn't guarantee 'evil'. Or 'chaotic'. What it probably does is enforce an extreme level of Neutral. "I look after me and mine, and am willing to allow those who aren't me or mine to suffer, because I can only look after so many." Guess what. Not Evil. Also not Chaotic. It pushes close but it doesn't tip over. Now, decisions made surrounding that kind of belief can make a person evil, but it isn't a guarantee.
Good doesn't mean Nice. In fact, Good (or Neutral) characters may have to oppose Good forces that are in power, because they're going too far (from the perspective of the PCs). The entire genocidal/colonial thing. What if the PC's nation is spreading out too far, wiping out those in their path because their faith or belief or culture says 'that race is evil / barbaric / primitive / savage'? Or what if you're from one of the other cultures, watching this empire expand. Maybe your people have a deal with them. And maybe it's only a matter of time before your people are subjugated as well.
"But they're evil." Says who?
The rulebook? You mean the rulebook which promotes a mindless, genocidal, colonialistic view of the world, where the 'kingdoms' are considered to be in the right and whole species are declared cannon fodder? That rulebook? Ever considered treating it as biased propaganda?
Let's go back into the 19th century for a bit. Consider what was written about non-white cultures and people by white people and British / American authors. How these other cultures were described, and how they were depicted. Now imagine if they wrote a game and set up rules for dealing with such people.
Well, you don't need to go back to the 19th century for this. There's games from the 20th century that did just that. Look at Palladium (Rifts: Japan, Rifts: Africa, Ninjas and Superspies). Or look at Advanced Dungeons and Dragons (human women aren't allowed higher than 17 Strength, oh, women of this race have higher wisdom then men of this race, but the men are stronger than the women).
See that? Think about what these numbers mean. All women are automatically unable to be as strong as men. Unless you're a half-orc, because, you know, half-orcs are savages. Half-orcs can only ever have 12 Charisma. Dwarves can have 16 at most. Because, you know, they can't really be expected to be charming or persuasive. The least graceful elf in the world has 7 Dexterity and the least graceful halfling has 8. Because, you know, genetic superiority. Half-orcs have a max Wisdom of 14, while Halflings can't get over 17. Because, we don't know, they're not allowed to have forethought?
All dwarves are dour and can't be as charismatic as humans or elves. Elves are all graceful, and even the clumsiest elf is sheer grace compared to the worst of any other race. Halflings are lacking in common sense. And women across the board are weaker than men - except if you're a half orc. And the fact the maximum charisma for a half-orc is 12 kills us.
Yeah. No biases there.
The thing is, you can still have orcs be violent without making them stupid, or uncharismatic, or evil. Perhaps their adrenaline system functions different than humans, making them react / lash out on instinct more so than a human would. They can still try to curb this instinct, they can still apologize, they can still be charming and intelligent. They can have a reputation, without it being true.
Just...
We get it. Tolkien was writing a power fantasy with strong Christian touchstones. Cosmic Good at war with Cosmic Evil. So, of course it's pretty black and white. But here's a thought.
What happens after the war? Sauron's defeated. There's goblins and orcs and ogres all over the place. Are they not capable of building a society? Are they going to be willing to talk, trade, and negotiate so they don't starve? Can't they take on jobs such as mercenaries, bodyguards, or soldiers? They had the means to craft weapons and armour, which means they had forges, which means they can craft. They can make homes, factories, farms. We're certain post-war, they're not all rampaging mindless marauders who are completely and utterly unreasonable.
They have free will. They can reason. They don't have to be evil, and without the Dark Forces pushing them into war, we're pretty sure there can be coexistence.
Food for thought.
Comments
Post a Comment