I prefer my villains in all shades of gray, but usually not redeemable. Sympathetic might be a better term. You might sorry for the guy, but that shouldn't stop you from cutting off his head clean off his shoulders when the time comes.

I'm in the 'shades of gray' club... but that covers everything I can think of. I can't bring myself to suspend disbelief in objective good and evil... it's all just perspective of victim and perpetrator. Not that the perspectives of some villains can ever be known or understood... so for most purposes they certainly appear to be pure 'EVIL'... Hannibal Lector, Cthulhu, the thing in the cave, etc.

Quote from: RPGPundit;607522Do you want there to be things, creatures, and people in your world that are objectively black-and-white Evil? Not necessarily "stupid evil" but none of this "they're just misunderstood" crap?

Or are you one of those guys who likes to constantly wallow in "shades of grey", who loves anti-heroes and villains-who-can-be-redeemed?

RPGPundit

Depends on the game.

In D&D, for instance, I'm cool with Evil and Good being tangible things that can be detected with spells...but I'm also having a blast running Necessary Evil, which is built on the assumption that evil beings can be redeemed in the face of greater evil.

I think there's a time and place for both.

Quote from: RPGPundit;607522Do you want there to be things, creatures, and people in your world that are objectively black-and-white Evil? Not necessarily "stupid evil" but none of this "they're just misunderstood" crap?

Or are you one of those guys who likes to constantly wallow in "shades of grey", who loves anti-heroes and villains-who-can-be-redeemed?

RPGPundit

Black and white evil bothers me, because people tend to badly mishandle it. Because we're not perfect and we are limited, we cannot handle such things perfectly, and since we can't handle them perfectly it's best to treat people as fallible and able to change for the better.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;607593...'kicking puppies is fun'...

And sometimes kicking puppies is fun (psychopathology qv.)

Quote from: Blackhand;607641It's tiny enough.  I don't think they'll ban me or sue me for posting the paragraph in it's entirety, verbatim.

Spell Explanations, p. 41

Detect Evil:  Basically, the degree of evil (faint, moderate, strong, overwhelming) and it's general nature (expectant, malignant, gloating, etc.) can be noted.  If the evil is overwhelming, the general bent (lawful, neutral, chaotic) has a 10% chance per level of the clereic of being detectable.

Based on the description given, I judged Zert to be faintly evil, and expectant (meaning he might commit some faint evil). His description says he can go either way on the party (accompany or murder), and wants to get rich.

This doesn't make the spell more or less useful, just shows you how to adjudicate the spell.

It doesn't put a target over a evil beings' head with the psychic impulse to kill the person / creature out of hand.  It's not a free excuse for a lawful good character to commit what amounts to murder, just to make sure that they understand what they are dealing with.

I finally got home and was able to read the dmg sections about detect evil and know alignment.

Essentially reading this reminded me why I started ignoring detect evil years ago.

Detect evil either fails vs a somewhat 'normal' evil person, or detects demons; evil priests, etc.. fairly accurately.

Know alignment gives the exact alignment.

In any of those situations, it's either useless or ruins the fun of ferreting out evil.

I am quite content to ignore alignment and alignment detection except for extraordinary situations.

Quote from: Thalaba;607544For my own campaign worlds I don't like objective evil at all. I prefer that 'evil' be completely subjective. Player characters are completely free to decide who they think is evil and who isn't. Some NPCs might agree with them, others might not. The world itself is impartial.

But you, as creator, are not- when you introduce an antagonist and his goal, you have decided that. Stephen Colbert made that point much better than I can ever hope to, in an interview with an HBO show creator who was giving the same answer.

Quote from: Tommy Brownell;607727Depends on the game.

In D&D, for instance, I'm cool with Evil and Good being tangible things that can be detected with spells...but I'm also having a blast running Necessary Evil, which is built on the assumption that evil beings can be redeemed in the face of greater evil.

I think there's a time and place for both.

Yeah, this.

I like playing around with shades of grey in Good/Evil and having NPCs that are Evil with Good Intentions. However, the concept that Evil is only misunderstood is so naive in my estimation that I tend to use it as an IQ test on my Players, if they fall for the "I'm just misunderstood" Evil being act being pulled on them - then I slam them hard.

Quote from: Settembrini;607735But you, as creator, are not- when you introduce an antagonist and his goal, you have decided that. Stephen Colbert made that point much better than I can ever hope to, in an interview with an HBO show creator who was giving the same answer.

I'd like you to elaborate a bit here, because i'm not sure what your point is.

I take care to give my villains reasons for what they do, i'll give you some examples:
* I'm not afraid of "reducing" unspeakable ones to the simple wants and needs of Feeding, Vengeance ... and finding horrified people entertaining.
* I made a scientist that experiments on people very cruelly, and several do not survive said experiments or the aftereffects, and he does so with no remorse.
However, he does it because he is trying to amass an army of mutants that will later defend the world against a "greater evil" .... and to him, he has no time to be gentle.
* I made a gruesome cannibal that was the result of an experiment, he had no choise but to eat any bodies thrown to him (survival instinct can be powerful sometimes), he's really a victim, but might easily be seen as a massmurderer. He also absorbed the memories of those he ate ... and some personalities.

Then there are the more common motives: Power, Greed, and so on ... but those are only the surface reasons, and just because one don't know what the actual reason is, there might still be a different reason.

Quote from: jeff37923;607738Yeah, this.

I like playing around with shades of grey in Good/Evil and having NPCs that are Evil with Good Intentions. However, the concept that Evil is only misunderstood is so naive in my estimation that I tend to use it as an IQ test on my Players, if they fall for the "I'm just misunderstood" Evil being act being pulled on them - then I slam them hard.

Have you thought of the idea that the act might be true?
The character may still be messed up enough to hit hard right back, but to redeem the "Evil one" in that case would take far more effort than a simple hug and pity and some help ....
It may take more effort than the characters are capable of, and "rough love" comes to mind ...

I don't mind supernatural pure evil, but I like humans to fall within shades of grey.

But to me, shades of grey doesn't necessarily mean redeemable.  People don't often change.  People are selfish and are prone to think they're right.  Sometimes pursuing things you think are right with too much zeal can turn you into an asshole over years and years and there's no easy road back.  Put a couple of decades of blood, sweat, and tears into something you believe and you're not going to renounce it because some random stranger told you you were wrong.  You might just follow your convictions to the bitter end.

That's assuming a motivated individual, though.  Some people are just lazy, cheap, and selfish, and not much else.  They just become shitty human beings who will take the easiest route through life, even if it means inconveniencing or totally fucking over other people in the process.

Quote from: RPGPundit;607522Do you want there to be things, creatures, and people in your world that are objectively black-and-white Evil? Not necessarily "stupid evil" but none of this "they're just misunderstood" crap?

Or are you one of those guys who likes to constantly wallow in "shades of grey", who loves anti-heroes and villains-who-can-be-redeemed?

RPGPundit

The campaign I'm currently running definitely isn't black-and-white good v. evil, and it's a bit more complicated than most of the "shades of grey" campaigns I've run in the past. The core conflict in the game is basically one of irreconcilable differences, rather than a clear-cut matter of right v. wrong. Both sides have made mistakes and committed illegal, possibly "evil" acts. The PCs took forever to make up their minds and choose a side. Once they finally did, they were all in, and they've recruited both heroes and villains alike to help their (hopeless) cause, not always knowing which ones were which, or caring whether they were "redeemable." And sometimes the PCs seem like the villains. It's been one mad, desperate scramble after another, with thousands of lives on the line, and they've had to make some tough choices.

The players tell me they've never played anything like it. I call that "mission accomplished."

I think to 'choose' either side alone is naive.  There are things that are grossly, irredeemably evil in the real world, and there are many varying shades of grey.  But for grey to exist, there has to be something for grey to lie between -- true light and true darkness.  They can be as almost-unknowable as the infinite mysteries of the universe, but they are still there.

As such, I use both types.  Many villains are often the shades-of-grey type, and some few are even redeemable (now whether society accepts that redemption is another thing entirely).  There are, however, a few out there that are 'pure evil', so to speak, and by their deeds will you know them.

Quote from: Catelf;607744Have you thought of the idea that the act might be true?

Sure. You have read my conclusion.

Quote from: Catelf;607744The character may still be messed up enough to hit hard right back, but to redeem the "Evil one" in that case would take far more effort than a simple hug and pity and some help ....
It may take more effort than the characters are capable of, and "rough love" comes to mind ...

Sorry, not interested. Does not sound fun from either a Player or GM perspective.

Quote from: Blackhand;607681You don't have any fucking idea.  There's been more than one essay written about this from the game designers themselves, not to mention from various independent sources.

Appeal to Authority fallacy. Of course, you conveniently fail to actually quote / link to these essays, making it impossible to check whether they really make the claims you attribute to them.

QuoteWhy don't you look something up before you tell the next person how you think it is.

I don't need to look up somebody's physics essay on why heavier-than-air flight is impossible, at least not when I've just stepped off a Boeing.

If someone wants to argue that removing alignment altogether makes the game different, let them; I'll be the first to agree. I someone says this different game is one they don't like, I'll accept that, since de gustibus non est disputandum. But when someone makes the blatantly false claim that it's impossible, they do not deserve any of the respect normally reserved for a debating opponent.

QuoteWhat you say is only true if you don't use half the published materials you probably don't even own.  You basically just ignore all questions of alignment, high level spells and planar interactions (which are based on alignment).

I'll wager the vast majority of your "experience" is with PC's of levels 1 through 5 at best.

Oh, I get it now. You're one of those poor bastards who were weaned by nuD&D and who eat, drink and breathe the Company credo of "You HAVE to buy all our books, you HAVE to use all our books, otherwise you're not playing the game AS INTENDED, and that makes your game WORSE". You have my honest symapthy. You're broken for life and there's no fixing you. You're not a bad guy, you're victim. Always remember that.


For your hypothetical edification (but who am I kidding, really?):

- All your "questions of alignment" are question that do not need to be asked in the first place. "How does HP work?", "What damage does this weapon do?", "What spell system is there?" These are question that need to be asked or else there's no game. "Why does this single specific spell need to be in the game?", "How do I explain gothic armour in my Dark Ages campaign?", and "How do I deal with the dullness and inconvenience of the alignment system?" are NOT questions that need to be asked. You don't need to justify removing you don't like, a piece of equipment that's anachronistic for your game, or a cosmological detail that doesn't fit your vision. You just remove them.

- Most high level spells have nothing to do with alignment, and like I just said, you're free to to just dump the few that do. You don't need them.

- Planar stuff? The vast majority of D&D material about planes is trite, and its shackling to the alignment system is actually one of the reasons. Get rid of the damn thing and good riddance. Take a clue from BECMI cosmology or just make up you own, you'd be hard pressed to make something worse than what's in place. (With some exceptions, admittedly.)

QuoteThe only way you can do this is if you say "well you just REMOVE that and CHANGE this" until there's a huge chunk of material just missing.

Well, exactly. A huge chunk of BAD material will be just missing. And guess what? Removing bad material increases the quality of your game.

QuoteAlso, how do you actually use a paladin in that scenario?  The answer is, you EMOVE a bunch of stuff.

Why would I want to use a paladin in a setting that's entirely built on not having a schoolchildren's simplistic alignment system?

This is the point you're fundamentally incapable of grasping: D&D is still perfectly D&D without the paladin. Without the assassin or the monk. Without the Detect Evil spell. Without Fighter Kit X or Prestige Class Y. Without Planescape. And yes, without alignment in general.