When you say "Evil"

[Legacy_Vibrant Penumbra]

               Oh my! So many juicy posts to respond to!'>
Do be sure I will get to each of you, but I shall start with the "silly" post.

Of couse, philosophical discussions on a game forum *are* a bit silly, but then, the OP states quite cleary this thread is Market Research for a module I am designing. The questions I asked are carefully -not clearly - phrased. This has resulted in some intelligent, enlightening and entertaining posts from some of the community's brightest (and darkest? _six?'>) lights. Just as Guile's post on "How do you feel about death" gave a great many very interesting respones, and was no less silly.

Consider: NwN is old and the community here is so much more mature than even 6 years ago.  Those left are either diehards quite dedicated to NwN or returnees (yours truly:P) who are still hoping for something special from this ancient engine.  To us, story is paramount over graphics and widgets. Further, as evidenced from the language and concepts in the posts, you can clearly see that the demographics of the regular contributors (as opposed to lurkers) includes intelligent, educated people.  

In fact, I'd say the vast bulk of the bell curve is middle-aged, professional men who know what they like and know what they want. The majority also, it seems clear to me, prefer to play the hero. I do not fit under that umbrella, so it behooves me to do a bit of research, yes?

The datum I aquire in this thread not only apply directly to my dark little module, but are of benefit to anyone who wants to make their villains deeper, more challenging and, by extension, their defeat more rewarding to "Heroes".

Specifically, the brain-dead alignment system of NwN really needs a make-over (a job for my script-slave, not me! *shudders* Never evereverever script. Makes my pretty head spin:blink:). What seems clearly desired is the ability to act on the borders of morality and ethics (two *very* different things) without a cataract-ridden game engine labeling us Good or Evil (Do you have any idea how often the engine labels me maleficent one moment (for a hidden deed) and takes it away the next when I help granny across the street (with witnesses or what's the point?)? Annoying). 

My script-slave (bf, such a sweetie) says (I have to quote 'cuz I don't get it, myself) "Separate moral and hierarchal faction-specific ethic vectors on a non-linear triple axis with mass" will not only address this need, but also "provide ethic deltas that describe inconsistent or insane behavior patterns". Wow! :DUm, what?

To return to the OP, the first responses are all the more valuable for being, in essence, unguided, open-ended responses that not only revealed limitations of the current engine, but insight into the personalities who participated (not least, that they *did* participate voluntarily without (or perhaps *against*) peer pressure).

Further responses will be useful, of course, but the notion that I am actually *listening* and *applying* their input will probably skew the results a bit.

The questions remain (rephrased and twisted a bit):
What do you think is "Evil" as the current game engine defines it (not the textual definition, but the actionable one)?
What play-style would *you* adopt to portray "Evil" in game (assuming a game-engine infinitely more flexible)?What *in-game* actions do you think exemplify "evil"?
What character in the OC do you consider the most "Evil"?

Philosophise if you wish, or simply provide datum. Or, as is you very personal right, ignore this silly thread:)

Note: Because there is such a strong tendency toward spoilers, I've asked Stanley Woo to move this thread to the Hordes forum.  We should be able to talk freely there '>

TTFN
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Stanley Woo]

               Moved to the Hordes forum, by request.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_jmlzemaggo]

               You're the chief, but this has nothing to do with HotU.
You're so evil...
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Vibrant Penumbra]

               

jmlzemaggo wrote...
You're the chief, but this has nothing to do with HotU.
You're so evil...

Ahhh, but it might, depending on what spoilers people wish to share. '>
Especially if we keep talking about Aribeth. 
She is such a lack-faith whiner, particularly in Hell.
Eww.
Grow a back-bone, sister!<>
I've known kobolds with more loyalty and courage.  
Well. Back on topic, J? Guess I should have added (Rant Warning) to the title  '>

I'll be back to catch up in a bit.

Ta!
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_ffbj]

               Sorry if you took offense merely focusing on the single word 'silly' from my post. I also said the thread was academic, but you did not question that, so I assume you agree.  Yes Guile's threads where silly too, but evoked some interesting responses, that's true.  I suppose I have just seen so many of these sorts of threads, and discussed this topic to the point that I am a bit jaded on the entire subject, and really know just about everything I need to, or care to know about these questions.  Sorry if I rained on your parade, as I did not mean to be negative, just expressing my opinion on this hackneyed subject.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Vibrant Penumbra]

               

ffbj wrote...
Sorry if you took offense merely focusing on the single word 'silly' from my post.

No offense taken:P It was a convenient handle to connect what i wanted to say and what you had said.

I also said the thread was academic, but you did not question that, so I assume you agree.

Always dangerous to assume, F. Technically, I suppose I agree in the sense that I am collecting information, learning things, and so this might be termed an academic thread '>

Now, if you said the thread was "moot", I'd point out that what is moot for one Ent is meat for another '>

Yes Guile's threads where silly too, but evoked some interesting responses, that's true.  I suppose I have just seen so many of these sorts of threads, and discussed this topic to the point that I am a bit jaded on the entire subject, and really know just about everything I need to, or care to know about these questions.

WooHOO! '> Glad someone knows all they need to know '>

Sorry if I rained on your parade, as I did not mean to be negative, just expressing my opinion on this hackneyed subject.

I issue bumbershoots to all my parades, just in case '>
Your opinion being? You didn't actually answer any of my darling little questions...
Or did I miss it? 
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Vibrant Penumbra]

                Let's see...
I still owe J, MysX, S & Dear Olivier some thoughtful responses:

@J Part 1: I consider the Lawful/Chaotic aspects to be directly applied to Morals (personal) and, thereby, indirectly applied to Ethics (communal). In that sense, to be Lawful, one must have a code and adhere to it. So I agree with that part (if I'm reading your rather Chaotic post correctly '>). 

Where the interesting possibilties lie are when Morals conflict with Ethics, as in an assassin who follows (faithfully!) her own code, but that code includes doing very nasty things to lesser races:D Am I evil because I wish to improve the breed and cull weaknesses? Hypothetically, of course '> 
Am I evil to my race? My victims? Everyone? An, should I turn my back on the ethics of my race and embrace the ethics of a different race, isn't that a terrible betrayal?

That part of your post I disagree with - that lawful has anything to do with freedom. The more lawful you are (to whatever law) the less true choice you have.

@MysteryX: I think you'd make a very good Drow, M '> To be clear, that's one of my better compliments '>
Nuanced, yes. Totally, absolutely agree (I love oxymorons... just don't trust them to handle my gold). I'd only add the need to separate Morals from Ethics and to model the... oh, blast... "Model a responsive, multi-entity, feed-back controlled learning-system" or some-such.'>
One of my primary goals.

@S & J part Duex: While I appreciate the ease of, as RK puts it, Advanced Playing Techniques, I'd really rather have a module that pays attention to what's happening and responds accurately. That is, I'd rather not make the player have to manage (or screw up) his own alignment.

And then there is dear, dear Olivier: Sir, you've been peeking at my notes!

To get those kind of behaviors I believe very strongly that what you do and what you are known to do are two very different things. We must separate out the hidden from the known, else how can you be so evil to one, but not hunted wildly by all? How can you force a personal betrayal unless the victim knows what he is doing is right, no matter how ill it appears to the community? How can I be known for petty thefts and skullduggery when I make sure I leave no (living) witnesses behind? Grrr.<>

And looting bodies? Teehee. I was mocking that myself. When people get too stuck, um, up on their high horse, it amuses me no end that they do things in game for expedience that they'd vow they should never condone.

I loot bodies and I'm proud of it:D Sometimes I even make sure they're dead first.'>
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_ffbj]

               Yeah, I guessed you missed that. Distilled: basically evil is in the eye of the beholder.  Whatever basis you have in your world for what is evil is based on your own interpretations.  So that is what I meant by academic. Needless, pointless, pendantry, since there is no basis for argument due to the fact that it's all make-believe, fantasy, a creation of your own imagination. i.e. there is no true evil, or good, for that matter aside from what you define it to be, and since you can change things willy nilly, as befits your own ideas, there can be no true evil or good in and of themselves because they all rely on you the creator/designer for their existence and these in turn are based on your own proclivities and those in turn determine your assignations of what constitute good and evil acts.
Now asking others for their points of view is all well and good, but it seems that ultimately you will make your own determinations on this topic, despite and/or regardless of  what others have to say. Another reason why I say it's merely academic, an exercise to poll others regarding there views to see how closely they coincide with your own.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Vibrant Penumbra]

               Oh, drat.
I missed it again *pout*
Let's go slower so I can see your hands move:blush:

 1) When you say "Evil", what do you mean in terms of play-style with NwN?
               
               

               

                     Modifié par Vibrant Penumbra, 09 novembre 2011 - 11:43 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_omen_shepperd]

               I am going to compose this tangent into some form of organized
rant. Normally I just mash thoughts together but I am finding most people are
not able to make much sense of my incoherent babbling.

1.) How do you act evil in game?
I think I need to first explain that normally
I do not play evil. I tend to play lawful good or neutral about 85% of the
time. However when I do play evil it mainly depends on whether I am playing
single player or multiplayer. With single player, I tend to play the version of
evil that would rob, assault, and murder the old woman while I help her across the
street. I tend to try to play evil in single player to its extreme form. In multi-player
when I do play evil, I play evil in a very secretive form, almost a extreme
form of paranoia that rivals my own paranoia. I only commit evil when nobody is
looking. Especially if the guards have a habit of hanging criminals.

2.)   What actions by NPCs do you think exemplify evil?
Well I think I am going to have to go with the basics here. Murder, rape, pillaging,
arson, wholesale destruction of countryside’s.

3.)   Which NPC in the OC (through HotU) do you think
was the most evil (not just brutal, but seriously (made your brain
squirm and your tummy a bit queasy) evil)?
If talking about the OC I have to
say it is a coin toss for me. While I could not wait to gut Desther with the
greatsword I was using, Aribeth was the main person I had my set my sights on taking
down. Throwing everything away for one person is so selfish and after playing
two characters from second edition, AD&D up to 3.5 D&D that lost many
loves to the cold grasp of death. Two that spring to mind are the paladin prince
I played had five brides die before they could celebrate the first year of marriage
together. Another was a cursed pirate/bard with immortality and watched
everyone he ever loved die while he continues to live on. Both were good men
who never gave in to the evils that continued to enter their lives and
constantly attempted to lure both to commit acts of evil that surely would have
made both no longer fun for me to play. I enjoyed resisting evils beck and call
as those two guys. What Aribeth did was inexcusable in my paladin’s eyes and
for her transgression, she had to pay.

4.)   1) When you say "Evil,” what do you mean in
terms of play-style with NWN?
I tend to play evil as the person in the group
that everyone has to make sure that I do not accidently pick up an extra share
of loot. I tend to do the dirty work of the group ( or rather the things the
good people of the group don’t want to do because of alignment, but it needs
done) and I always offer up violence as the first solution to almost every problem
.

Then again I always had the view
that lawful good in its purest form is evil. '>
               
               

               

                     Modifié par omen_shepperd, 10 novembre 2011 - 07:38 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_olivier leroux]

               

omen_shepperd wrote...
Aribeth was the main person I had my set my sights on taking
down. Throwing everything away for one person is so selfish

Well, since we are allowed spoilers now ... Curiously enough, for me it was quite the opposite. Rationally I understand the argument that Aribeth is selfish because she threw away everything for one person and that her later actions are therefor evil. But I started hating her well before that. For me her first betrayal was throwing one person away for the sake of some holier-than-thou principles (in the best case, or in the worst case, for her own career).

I couldn't believe she would sacrifice her own lover just to present the people of Neverwinter with a scapegoat. That might have been an easy way to appease the masses and prevent further turmoil in the city, but I feel it's a betrayal of a loved one, a great injustice towards Fenthick, and it could be considered hypocritical and therefor evil, too. Fenthick is called a traitor even though he wasn't aware of betraying anyone and Aribeth and Lord Nasher are guilty of the same ignorance.

As a player you even get the option to tell Aribeth of your suspicions and she just ignores them, she won't heed any of your warnings just because she trusts Fenthick. So if Fenthick deserves death just for trusting Desther, why does the same not apply to Aribeth trusting Fenthick? Why doesn't she offer herself as a scapegoat to appease the masses if she is such a saint?

I couldn't take any of her subsequent whining seriously. She shouldn't have sacrificed Fenthick without saying anything in his defense. You might make a case that betraying one person is better than betraying a whole people, but I'd still consider it an evil act. For me, the tragic hero of the "story" would not be Aribeth but Fenthick (although I guess his lack of b<><3bs makes="" it="" harder="" for="" players="" to="" feel="" sympathy="" for="" him="" ...=""> ) .
               
               

               

                     Modifié par olivier leroux, 10 novembre 2011 - 01:06 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_Vibrant Penumbra]

               

omen_shepperd wrote...

I am going to compose this tangent into some form of organized
rant. Normally I just mash thoughts together but I am finding most people are
not able to make much sense of my incoherent babbling.

Why, thank you dear! You are considerate and thoughtful - habits to be encouraged, I assure you.

1.) How do you act evil in game?
<snip>
I tend to play the version of evil that would rob, assault, and murder the old woman while I help her across the
street. I tend to try to play evil in single player to its extreme form. In multi-player when I do play evil, I play evil in a very secretive form, almost a extreme form of paranoia that rivals my own paranoia. I only commit evil when nobody is looking. Especially if the guards have a habit of hanging criminals. 
<snippety snip>
I tend to play evil as the person in the group
that everyone has to make sure that I do not accidently pick up an extra share
of loot. I tend to do the dirty work of the group ( or rather the things the
good people of the group don’t want to do because of alignment, but it needs
done) and I always offer up violence as the first solution to almost every problem.

Exactly the kind of datum I was looking for. And, may I say I regard your views to closely coincide with my own:)

Even if I don't, I just had to say that '>

Then again I always had the view
that lawful good in its purest form is evil. '>

Evil is phantasm, Good is dream. There is only life on the edge of light and shadow. 
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Vibrant Penumbra]

               

olivier leroux wrote...

omen_shepperd wrote...
Aribeth was the main person I had my set my sights on taking
down. Throwing everything away for one person is so selfish

Well, since we are allowed spoilers now ... Curiously enough, for me it was quite the opposite.
<snip>
For me her first betrayal was throwing one person away for the sake of some holier-than-thou principles (in the best case, or in the worst case, for her own career).
<more good stuff reluctantly snipped>
Why doesn't she offer herself as a scapegoat to appease the masses if she is such a saint?

 
Yup. And then, you beat her down (and I did so enjoy that) at the end and what does she do? Betray Morag like she did Fenthick. Excuse me? That is a paladin? Can't tough out being good, can't tough out her own mistakes, all weepy and waifish... Waifish, in platemail? Oh, please! Suck it up, hag.

I couldn't take any of her subsequent whining seriously. She shouldn't have sacrificed Fenthick without saying anything in his defense. You might make a case that betraying one person is better than betraying a whole people, but I'd still consider it an evil act.

And she betrayed the whole people, as well, so that isn't any part of her defense. IMO.

For me, the tragic hero of the "story" would not be Aribeth but Fenthick (although I guess his lack of b<><3bs makes="" it="" harder="" for="" players="" to="" feel="" sympathy="" for="" him="" ...=""> ) .

*laughing and sputtering so hard she can't speak, only point helplessly at the dear little froggy thing*
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Mystery X]

               Here's how I saw the tragedy of Aribeth.  Aribeth dutifully and faithfully adhered to the lawful tenants of her god, but in doing so she helped bring about a result that was manifestly unjust.  The idea of a chivalric type of code (the "lawful good" constraint of paladins) is that if you follow the set of good rules, it produces good results.  That ideal, the basis of her faith and truly her identity as a paladin, failed spectacularly.  Faced with that, Aribeth decided that if duty and honor didn't work, she would try power and revenge.

I thought the story was good, because there was an actual, understandable motivation as to why the villain became the villain.  Villains who are evil for no more reason than some people are just evil are not very interesting.

Likeable or not, at least Aribeth had depth and motivation.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_olivier leroux]

               

Mystery X wrote...
Villains who are evil for no more reason than some people are just evil are not very interesting.

I wholeheartedly agree with this ...

Mystery X wrote...
Likeable or not, at least Aribeth had depth and motivation.

... this on the other hand is something I can't relate to. Personally I found the story-telling of the OC rather lacking. The idea behind the story may be a good one, as you point out, but the way it's told didn't convince me at all. In this case I don't see much depth in the implementation of the theme, as it comes across as rather abstract and elusive (just like the D&D alignments themselves). Besides, I think the game expects the player to find Aribeth likable and sympathize with her to a certain extent, and it didn't work for me one bit. But then again, tastes differ.