Banality of Evil

[Andrew Boulton]

"IRL, I think the best definition of Evil is only the mere absence of Good"

There's more to it than that. You can have absence of Good and Evil simultaneously. They both imply actively doing something. Giving money to a homeless person is Good, but walking straight past isn't Evil. Kicking them would be.

 

[parmasson]

“Shiny, let’s be bad guys!”
Jayne Cobb
(philosopher/gunslinger)

 

[Gnusam Netor]

Originally posted by Andrew Boulton:
walking straight past isn't Evil. Kicking them would be. [/QB]

Either way, i claim that the vacuum is evil in it self. It kills.

 

[parmasson]

What I think the Cobb means is that sometimes good guys do evil things. Traveller does not have “alignments”. Evil is to some extent relative to the situation.

BTW Gnusam, the vacuum isn’t evil, pressing the button that opens the outer door while laughing manically is . .

 

[Gnusam Netor]

Originally posted by Kurega Gikur:
BTW Gnusam, the vacuum isn’t evil, pressing the button that opens the outer door while laughing manically is . .

And what kills on the other side of the door? vacuum kills, vacuum is evil, see???

(BTW, i think that inaction in regard to suffering can be seen as evil and not only to actively cause sufferment(is that a word?).)

 

[Andrew Boulton]

Vacuum isn't conscious, so it's incapable of being either Good or Evil.

Inaction is only Evil if it's intended to be, ie if you deliberately do nothing on order to cause harm.

 

[Gnusam Netor]

Originally posted by Andrew Boulton:

Inaction is only Evil if it's intended to be, ie if you deliberately do nothing on order to cause harm.

THAT I agree with.
Hence, we actively ignore to take action in front of human suffering every day.
=>
we are all evil. (of varying degrees)
=>
the term "evil" is pretty meaningless as a descriptor.

BTW, i think intent is a necessity for being "evil".

 

[Andrew Boulton]

Ah, but our everyday inaction isn't intended to cause harm. Most people are just apathetic, that's all, plus the suffering is happening elsewhere. IME most people are basically good, when they can be bothered.

 

[Gnusam Netor]

I agree with you in principle, but what i am contending is that Evil(tm) is a poor way of describing people, dangerous is better.

But to continue to play devils advocate (I’m good at that as others have pointed out):

The apathy of basically good people let a certain someone* rise to power. Are they without guilt?
I don't think ignorance or apathy gives you a entry ticket into heaven by defeault.

* I don't want to wake up Godwin.

 

[parmasson]

I think that what is missing here is a scale of what is acceptable?

If you face an authority that is oppressive than the actions of the PCs will make them more dangerous/evil.

This says to me:
How does your Imperium treat its citizens?
That helps define in game terms what is evil.

A jackbooted empire makes resistance more justified.

A less intrusive empire could mean that wickedness is more of a local thing with the empire keeping the locals from hurting each other too much.

 

[Andrew Boulton]

"A jackbooted empire makes resistance more justified."

I prefer my Evil Bad Guys(TM) to be more subtle. They're handsome, and charming, and perfectly reasonable...and it's only when you study the fine print and think through the consequences that you realise just how monsterous they truly are, and by then, of course, it's too late.

Watch Kenneth Branagh in "Conspiracy" for a perfect example.

 

[parmasson]

I prefer my Evil Bad Guys(TM) to be more subtle. They're handsome, and charming, and perfectly reasonable...

Hmmmm, so that charming fellow over at the punch bowl who is telling all the funny jokes and brought such a nice gift for the kids is really the biological and chemical weapons officer on the battleship that just docked? That lovely lady discussing philosophy with professor Richardson ordered the nuclear surface bombardment of Kevasha as an example to the subsector of what happens when you challenge the Imperial navy.

Like Cardassians, refined and self consciously evil verses the “Bawhahaha” manic super-villain or thug.

--------
In one campaign the Imperium has become much more the interstellar thug. They are very “Alliance” and seem to encourage lawbreaking and bribing. In the party the character with the bribery skill and a pocket full of Cr100 notes is the first in.

Which brings me to my point, (finally) is corruption part of evil?

Listen I am bringing in this illegal cargo here is Cr500 ($1,200USD) to look the other way. Is that “evil”?

All my non-officer Imperial officials are bribable. The base is Cr200 and 8+
Every time the bribe doubles you get a +1 and +1 for the bribery skill.

 

[Andrew Boulton]

There is a wide spectrum from Good to Evil, and most people oscillate around the centre. One day I might do more Good things (buy my mother a present, help a friend move house), the next more Evil (walk past someone collecting for charity, buy clothes made in a Far-East sweatshop). It's easy to get sucked in to doing worse and worse things, especially if you don't realise (or refuse to believe) that it's happening.

 

[Fritz_Brown]

But, if all my evil overlords are too subtle, I never get to do the "Bwahahahaha" laugh. And, not only is that no fun, my laugh has been known to cause great fear and consternation among my players....

 

[daryen]

I find the best way to handle both evils is to trick the players into assisting the subtle evil to defeat the "Bwahahahaha" evil. Only then do they realize just how badly they really just screwed themselves.

 

[parmasson]

Well, I would never propose doing away with the evil Professor Io and his henchmen in his asteroid outpost. All that mustache wax needs to be bought by somebody.

 

[Gnusam Netor]

Originally posted by daryen:
I find the best way to handle both evils is to trick the players into assisting the subtle evil to defeat the "Bwahahahaha" evil. Only then do they realize just how badly they really just screwed themselves.

Now that's evil. NO! I mean dangerous

they might throw dice at you or something.

 

[Darkhstarr]

My wife's corsair character is charming, flamboyant, sexy, & a priestess onplanet. Get
her aboard her ship and she's the ruthless, professional Imperial officer she once was. For her restraint in killing isn't mercy-it good business policy. Pirates who are casual killers tend to be hunted more than those with restraint.
Besides, you as 'noble' pirate might get paid to whack your more 'evil' brethern. One of the major conflicts going on in my campaign is fought between pirates & a major terrorist group that's
making life difficult to be a pirate.
Though there is the time a captain hauling 'colonists' in low berth shot it out her
ship (& this after getting his jump drive disabled). Some of the 'passengers' became collateral damage. Bette spaced the captain in his birthday, robbed the crew & placed them a lifeboat. Then placed a prize crew aboard the captured ship, repaired the drive, & delivered the passengers to their actual destination. After
delivery they game a report to the local on the attack, IDing the real crew. Then they lifted ship & sold it on another planet.

 

[jwdh71]

If you are the GM and the majority of your players want to play evil characters, you have only have a few choices:
1. Let them play the characters they choose, and switch your game around to make sure you have pushes and pulls for their types of characters (altruistic push/pulls don't usually work on amoral maniacs).
2. Refuse to run that type of game and watch your players slowly disappear from the table.

I've done both, and to me at least, number one works better. It's hard enough to get a decent group together to play regularly, and then to force them to play the type of game YOU want, not what they want, makes it even harder. We had a name for the GM in my group that wanted to force their players to play a certain way, we called them Solos. They rarely were asked to GM after they had gotten that reputation, since nobody in the groups we were in wanted to play under those kinds of restrictions. Besides we all had to deal with tyrannical people in our day-to-day lives (teachers, professors, bosses, parents...), why deal with that while you're trying to have fun?

 

[Darkhstarr]

I'll allow players to play what they what normally. But if you've got a bunch of players whose characters will clash because of their divergent names & I do try to caution them to find a reason why they work together.

Had a group where the adventurers where led by a gentleman thief & their adventures tended to be on the illegal side. The odd character was a droyne sport, however his reason for being there was to study substrata of human culture-in this case being the assistant of the party leader gave him a great study group.