One of the hardest things to adjudicate in games is morality. It can be especially hard when players are playing anti-heroes who's actions are questionable but who's ultimate aims and results benefit everyone. I hope this article will help other GMs to better declare when certain acts are evil vs. good and why.
What is Good?
In order to make a ruling on an act which might be considered evil, we first need a good, practical working definition of good and evil. The most cut-and-dry definition of a good act is one that causes no deliberate harm or that accepts harm to oneself in order to prevent greater harm to others.
What is Evil?
Now that we know what good is, evil is simply its opposite: An evil act is one that intentionally causes harm for a perceived benefit. It doesn't matter how you justify the act. If you know going in that what you're about to do will hurt someone and benefit yourself in some way, even if the harm or the benefit is indirect, the act is still evil.
Selfishness vs. Altruism
Another way to think about the good-evil spectrum is to focus on a more utilitarian view of morality. Any act a person commits is, by nature, to some degree either selfish or altruistic. In this view of morality, the emphasis is on the motive for the act, not the act itself. Thus, it is possible to act in an altruistic way for selfish motives and still be committing evil - arguably a less severe form (more in keeping with something like a neutral evil alignment), but evil all the same. It is also possible for someone to commit selfish acts for altruistic motives. Most forms of legal punishment would fall into this category: the act itself seems violent or selfish, but the reasoning behind it is to encourage other criminals to think twice. This would be in keeping especially well with something like a lawful good or lawful neutral alignment.
The Question of Sincerity
One of the hardest calls to make is upon a character who was coerced into committing evil. I tend to be light-handed in such situations. If the player's character shows genuine remorse over the act, there's no need to declare some sort of morality shift. In the end, it's all about what the character feels. In general, evil characters feel indifferent toward giving aid and passionate about giving harm. Good characters, in general, feel the opposite - violence is seen as a grim duty, but giving aid is where the true glory lies. Good characters are all 'reluctant heroes,' those forced to use war, violence, and trickery to take down enemies who will not listen to reason or negotiation. Watch your players and see how their characters act when given honors and praise for slaying evil foes. Truly good characters will not feel they deserve a reward for the slaying, but rather a reward for saving the innocent.
Objective vs. Subjective Morality
Is the game universe you're running operating according to objective laws of reality that operate like the laws of nature? Or is it a universe where the universe is amoral, and it takes a group of other people to judge an individual's acts good or evil?
Most fantasy games occur in Medieval settings. During Medieval times, morality was seen as objective. The laws of morality were revealed by God to the leaders of the Church, who's duty it was to understand those laws and interpret them for the common folk. Murder, for example, was, by the nature of the act itself, evil. Hence, it took a special dispensation from the Pope to declare that killing a Muslim on a Crusade was God's will. After all, doing God's will was always, by its nature, good. In an objectively moral universe, a character who is forced by circumstance to commit evil acts repeatedly, no matter how good his intentions, will become evil. In such a setting it is vitally important to give characters an escape clause. During Medieval times, a man could confess his sins and receive absolution in order to save his soul from Hell. In other cultures, those tainted by evil engage in their own rituals in order to become acceptable members of society once again. Without the possibility of reform, life becomes hopeless. For we are all morally flawed creatures and we all commit, at the very least, tiny evil acts almost every day of our lives according to the view of objective morality.
A subjectively moral game universe is easier on players but harder for a GM. There's nothing implicitly wrong with genocide, rape, murder, theft, or deception. Indeed, there are examples of all of these in Nature. They are legitimate tactics for the survival of a species. Even within human societies, what constitutes an evil act can vary, because the definition of things like 'rape' or 'deception' can vary. There are places on Earth where kissing in public is seen as obscene. There are societies that thrive on lies of omission and do not consider them dishonorable.
In most post-industrial societies on Earth, subjective morality has grown more accepted. People have come to distrust authority figures, to look on their own leaders as more likely to be the most corrupt than those who follow them, to emphasize that laws can be written or enforced unjustly. Personal beliefs and moral codes dominate, and if my idea of right and wrong is different from yours, there is very little you can do about it. Indeed, society has come to discourage you from trying.
The Ends Justify The Means
This argument can be used by both good and evil-aligned characters. It is important for GMs to understand that this argument is therefore a flawed one as a defense of one's actions. A good hero might feel perfectly justified in slaughtering thousands of orcs in order to fell the black warlock who threatens the world with a reign of terror. Tell that to the orc race, or to the families of the orc warriors who were slain. An evil villain might use his power, influence or wealth to uplift an entire minority of poor, oppressed elves in order to form a loyal contingent that he can use to overthrow the rightful king. But try explaining that to the elf who has a roof over his head and three meals a day for the first time in his life. To say that a character - player or NPC - is ultimately good or evil because of what she achieved by the end of the adventure or campaign is bad GMing. Do not fall into the trap of this way of thinking.
Revenge
Do good characters seek revenge? Do evil characters ever NOT seek revenge? I would argue the answer to the first question is sometimes, the answer to the second question is never. Good characters are still flawed, imperfect characters. They are not saints. The impulse to return hate with hate and violence with violence is as natural as breathing. That doesn't make it the right or wrong thing to do. It's simply the way we've evolved to think. Some of the most compelling stories ever written were tales of vengeance, and revenge can certainly make for a heady theme to an adventure. But there is a difference between how a good character and an evil character seek revenge.
For those who are good, revenge is about justice. Honestly about justice. They are not trying to kill the villain or make him suffer. They are trying to capture the villain in order to bring him to trial, in order to allow the larger public to see the truth of what he has done. In some cases, a good character may be seeking to reform a villain who wronged her.
For those who are evil, revenge is about personal satisfaction. They want the satisfaction of the kill, the suffering. They want those who wronged them at their mercy, begging for forgiveness or compassion. Evil characters want to make those who wronged them "pay" to them personally, not to some higher authority or larger society.
No comments:
Post a Comment