Oops, someone left me in the thread.
|
Or the git who pushes one directly into ad homimem. (Would that make it, ad gitimem?) OT: Interesting essay on Wilde.
Bookmarked that so I can read up on Mr Wilde. I am admitedly not as well read in his works as I wish I were, thanks M.
Sure, Moorluck. Now that I think about it, Wilde and Chesterton are not at all off topic to the question of evil characters...nope, not at all.
|
The problem with any evil campaign is that most evil people don't think they are evil. They think they are doing what needs to be done. Jack Baur is a great evil character because he knows that the line exists, but he has to step over it to preserve the reason for the line. Since someone else already Godwined the thread, Hitler did not see himself as evil either, he saw himself as doing what needed to be done for the good of his country.
Even most criminals don't think they are doing anything wrong, they are just getting what they are owed the only way they can. Oddly, only the insane are able to clearly see themselves as evil, like the Joker. I think that in order to clearly play eveil characters you must decide what motivates them and why they do what they do. In fct this is even more important with evil characters than with good ones.
Sure, Moorluck. Now that I think about it, Wilde and Chesterton are not at all off topic to the question of evil characters...nope, not at all.
We need a book club so we can discuss literature relating to playing evil characters.
|
|
The problem with any evil campaign is that most evil people don't think they are evil. They think they are doing what needs to be done. Jack Baur is a great evil character because he knows that the line exists, but he has to step over it to preserve the reason for the line. Since someone else already Godwined the thread, Hitler did not see himself as evil either, he saw himself as doing what needed to be done for the good of his country.
Even most criminals don't think they are doing anything wrong, they are just getting what they are owed the only way they can. Oddly, only the insane are able to clearly see themselves as evil, like the Joker. I think that in order to clearly play eveil characters you must decide what motivates them and why they do what they do. In fct this is even more important with evil characters than with good ones.
So basicly you're saying evil is in the eyes of the observer? I can buy that to an extent. On Hitler though, I doubt he had the good of his country in mind as much as he did solidifying his own power, and the expanding it. When that didn't work his mind couldn't handle the preasure and he took the easy way out.
Sure, Moorluck. Now that I think about it, Wilde and Chesterton are not at all off topic to the question of evil characters...nope, not at all.We need a book club so we can discuss literature relating to playing evil characters.
I'd add Aquinas' discussion of virtues and vices to such a reading list, and also Augustine on evil as a privation of the good.
I'd be honored to be part of such an esteemed literary cabal!
|
|
Exactly. Palladium Games handles this really well.
So basicly you're saying evil is in the eyes of the observer? I can buy that to an extent.
Palladium uses a system where alignments are described in detailed terms with alignments describing how a character acts in a certain situation; whether they will lie, how much force they will use against innocents, how they view the law, and so on. The alignments are organized into three broad categories: Good, Selfish, and Evil. The seven core alignments are Principled (Good), Scrupulous (Good), Unprincipled (Selfish), Anarchist (Selfish), Aberrant (Evil), Miscreant (Evil), and Diabolic (Evil). An eighth alignment, Taoist, was introduced in Mystic China, but has not seen wide use.
Each category contains answers to a set of questions on moral behaviors. For example, given the question "Would you keep a wallet full of cash you found?", most selfish or evil alignments would keep it, while most good alignments would seek to return the wallet to its owner. The categories are not organized into a pattern like Dungeons & Dragons. The system specifically does not include any sort of "neutral" alignment on the grounds that a neutral point of view is antithetical to the sort of active role heroes and villains should play in a story.
Each of their seven alignments describes certain things that a character of that alignment will or won't do. Then you have a guide of how to act in a given situation. They also present fictional character who fit that alignment so you can go and see how a person like that would act. Evil is a very simplistic term that implies that evryoe recognizes the same moral code, but som hoose to intentionally act against it. From a historical viewpoint that is simply not the case.
|
|
I'd add Aquinas' discussion of virtues and vices to such a reading list, and also Augustine on evil as a privation of the good.Sure, Moorluck. Now that I think about it, Wilde and Chesterton are not at all off topic to the question of evil characters...nope, not at all.We need a book club so we can discuss literature relating to playing evil characters.
Remind me sometime to get you to e-mail me a list of suggested reading Profesor. And I'm not being snarky.
|
|
I'd add Aquinas' discussion of virtues and vices to such a reading list, and also Augustine on evil as a privation of the good.Sure, Moorluck. Now that I think about it, Wilde and Chesterton are not at all off topic to the question of evil characters...nope, not at all.We need a book club so we can discuss literature relating to playing evil characters.
We also need to add Plato's Republic, Mill's On Liberty, Luther's On Secular Authority to the list as well.
|
|
Exactly. Palladium Games handles this really well.
So basicly you're saying evil is in the eyes of the observer? I can buy that to an extent.Each of their seven alignments describes certain things that a character of that alignment will or won't do. Then you have a guide of how to act in a given situation. They also present fictional character who fit that alignment so you can go and see how a person like that would act. Evil is a very simplistic term that implies that evryoe recognizes the same moral code, but som hoose to intentionally act against it. From a historical viewpoint that is simply not the case.Palladium uses a system where alignments are described in detailed terms with alignments describing how a character acts in a certain situation; whether they will lie, how much force they will use against innocents, how they view the law, and so on. The alignments are organized into three broad categories: Good, Selfish, and Evil. The seven core alignments are Principled (Good), Scrupulous (Good), Unprincipled (Selfish), Anarchist (Selfish), Aberrant (Evil), Miscreant (Evil), and Diabolic (Evil). An eighth alignment, Taoist, was introduced in Mystic China, but has not seen wide use.
Each category contains answers to a set of questions on moral behaviors. For example, given the question "Would you keep a wallet full of cash you found?", most selfish or evil alignments would keep it, while most good alignments would seek to return the wallet to its owner. The categories are not organized into a pattern like Dungeons & Dragons. The system specifically does not include any sort of "neutral" alignment on the grounds that a neutral point of view is antithetical to the sort of active role heroes and villains should play in a story.
But in the end, at the gaming table, only the GM and players agreed upon veiw of evil matters.
I thought Palladium's alignment system was interesting, but I couldn't get my game group to try it out.
|
I'd add Aquinas' discussion of virtues and vices to such a reading list, and also Augustine on evil as a privation of the good.Sure, Moorluck. Now that I think about it, Wilde and Chesterton are not at all off topic to the question of evil characters...nope, not at all.We need a book club so we can discuss literature relating to playing evil characters.
boring......
So basicly you're saying evil is in the eyes of the observer? I can buy that to an extent. On Hitler though, I doubt he had the good of his country in mind as much as he did solidifying his own power, and the expanding it. When that didn't work his mind couldn't handle the preasure and he took the easy way out.The problem with any evil campaign is that most evil people don't think they are evil. They think they are doing what needs to be done. Jack Baur is a great evil character because he knows that the line exists, but he has to step over it to preserve the reason for the line. Since someone else already Godwined the thread, Hitler did not see himself as evil either, he saw himself as doing what needed to be done for the good of his country.
Even most criminals don't think they are doing anything wrong, they are just getting what they are owed the only way they can. Oddly, only the insane are able to clearly see themselves as evil, like the Joker. I think that in order to clearly play eveil characters you must decide what motivates them and why they do what they do. In fct this is even more important with evil characters than with good ones.
Aquinas argued from a eudaimonistic position, that is, that evil people are always choosing some good, in their understanding, when they act. There desire for that good may be disordered (smaller goods over greater goods), or their understanding of the relationship between their action and the perceived good, or the perceived good and actual object of the act, may be all screwy as hell, but they are in their mind seeking a good.
|
|
But in the end, at the gaming table, only the GM and players agreed upon veiw of evil matters.Exactly. Palladium Games handles this really well.
So basicly you're saying evil is in the eyes of the observer? I can buy that to an extent.Each of their seven alignments describes certain things that a character of that alignment will or won't do. Then you have a guide of how to act in a given situation. They also present fictional character who fit that alignment so you can go and see how a person like that would act. Evil is a very simplistic term that implies that evryoe recognizes the same moral code, but som hoose to intentionally act against it. From a historical viewpoint that is simply not the case.Palladium uses a system where alignments are described in detailed terms with alignments describing how a character acts in a certain situation; whether they will lie, how much force they will use against innocents, how they view the law, and so on. The alignments are organized into three broad categories: Good, Selfish, and Evil. The seven core alignments are Principled (Good), Scrupulous (Good), Unprincipled (Selfish), Anarchist (Selfish), Aberrant (Evil), Miscreant (Evil), and Diabolic (Evil). An eighth alignment, Taoist, was introduced in Mystic China, but has not seen wide use.
Each category contains answers to a set of questions on moral behaviors. For example, given the question "Would you keep a wallet full of cash you found?", most selfish or evil alignments would keep it, while most good alignments would seek to return the wallet to its owner. The categories are not organized into a pattern like Dungeons & Dragons. The system specifically does not include any sort of "neutral" alignment on the grounds that a neutral point of view is antithetical to the sort of active role heroes and villains should play in a story.
That's true, but my guess is that each group views it differently.
Any issue of the X-men including The Hellfire Club is a good example of an evil group. Damn I feel like a geek b ringing that one up. :/
But wait, haven't the Inner Circle screwed themselves over several times by plotting against each other? Oh yeah . . .
|
|
Aquinas argued from a eudaimonistic position, that is, that evil people are always choosing some good, in their understanding, when they act. There desire for that good may be disordered (smaller goods over greater goods), or their understanding of the relationship between their action and the perceived good, or the perceived good and actual object of the act, may be all screwy as hell, but they are in their mind seeking a good.
and I argue from a eumomma position:
boooooooorign.|
|
That's true, but my guess is that each group views it differently.But in the end, at the gaming table, only the GM and players agreed upon veiw of evil matters.Exactly. Palladium Games handles this really well.
So basicly you're saying evil is in the eyes of the observer? I can buy that to an extent.Each of their seven alignments describes certain things that a character of that alignment will or won't do. Then you have a guide of how to act in a given situation. They also present fictional character who fit that alignment so you can go and see how a person like that would act. Evil is a very simplistic term that implies that evryoe recognizes the same moral code, but som hoose to intentionally act against it. From a historical viewpoint that is simply not the case.Palladium uses a system where alignments are described in detailed terms with alignments describing how a character acts in a certain situation; whether they will lie, how much force they will use against innocents, how they view the law, and so on. The alignments are organized into three broad categories: Good, Selfish, and Evil. The seven core alignments are Principled (Good), Scrupulous (Good), Unprincipled (Selfish), Anarchist (Selfish), Aberrant (Evil), Miscreant (Evil), and Diabolic (Evil). An eighth alignment, Taoist, was introduced in Mystic China, but has not seen wide use.
Each category contains answers to a set of questions on moral behaviors. For example, given the question "Would you keep a wallet full of cash you found?", most selfish or evil alignments would keep it, while most good alignments would seek to return the wallet to its owner. The categories are not organized into a pattern like Dungeons & Dragons. The system specifically does not include any sort of "neutral" alignment on the grounds that a neutral point of view is antithetical to the sort of active role heroes and villains should play in a story.
Yes but as we've learned from these boards, everyone else is doing it wrong! ;)
And since I brought up comics, Iron Man during the Civil War is a good example of Evil IMO.
Which one? There seemed to be a different Tony in every comic he appeared in.
|
|
Any issue of the X-men including The Hellfire Club is a good example of an evil group. Damn I feel like a geek b ringing that one up. :/But wait, haven't the Inner Circle screwed themselves over several times by plotting against each other? Oh yeah . . .
Weak dungeonmaster. Couldn't enforce a "no backstabbing!" houserule.
|
|
Any issue of the X-men including The Hellfire Club is a good example of an evil group. Damn I feel like a geek b ringing that one up. :/But wait, haven't the Inner Circle screwed themselves over several times by plotting against each other? Oh yeah . . .
We have a winner! Where do you want me to send the life size Emma Frost as White Queen doll? ;)
and I argue from a eumomma position:
booooooooring.
Of course. Evil is banal. Add Hannah Arendt to the list.
We have a winner! Where do you want me to send the life size Emma Frost as White Queen doll? ;)
|
|
And since I brought up comics, Iron Man during the Civil War is a good example of Evil IMO.Which one? There seemed to be a different Tony in every comic he appeared in.
Any one where he once again was willing to do anything that increased his own personal power, no matter what the cost... so pretty much any one. His entire rise to power as head of SHEILD at the expense of his friends, even going so far as to use mind controled villains to hunt down his own allies proved his true measure.
We have a winner! Where do you want me to send the life size Emma Frost as White Queen doll? ;)Any issue of the X-men including The Hellfire Club is a good example of an evil group. Damn I feel like a geek b ringing that one up. :/But wait, haven't the Inner Circle screwed themselves over several times by plotting against each other? Oh yeah . . .
schwing!
Hey, was that comic using the historical Hellfire clubs as an inspiration? Now there's a great element of evil to add to any game!
|
|
Emma Frost StatueWe have a winner! Where do you want me to send the life size Emma Frost as White Queen doll? ;)
1) That is too friggin sweet!
2) I am glad the wife took the debit card with her or I'd be in trouble tonight. :D
And Hannah Montana. Lying b~!!@! :)Of course. Evil is banal. Add Hannah Arendt to the list.and I argue from a eumomma position:
booooooooring.
+1
|
|
And since I brought up comics, Iron Man during the Civil War is a good example of Evil IMO.But again, he had "good" intentions, to prevent another Stamford. He would fall into LE. Normon Osborn, who provoked the Soldier Field Massacre so he could sieze more power, would be a great example of CE.
I'd argue that he simply used Stamford as an excuse to set himself up in an even higher office. Now that he's lost that power suddenly he's willing to work with the underground heroes again. Dudes a doushe. Thor should've killed his tin plated ass in New Orleans.
Any one where he once again was willing to do anything that increased his own personal power, no matter what the cost... so pretty much any one. His entire rise to power as head of SHEILD at the expense of his friends, even going so far as to use mind controled villains to hunt down his own allies proved his true measure.
. . . and to think I gave up b#&@+ing about Civil War years ago . . . ;)
Once in a while in one of the crossovers they would remember that it was originally suppose to be hard to figure out what side was the right one and have Tony act like a human being for a while. I seem to remember the X-Men Civil War crossover was one such event, even though it was promptly ignored by Storm's appearances in Black Panther.
Civil War: Not just a a bad idea, but a continuity nightmare . . . thanks Joe Quesada!
|
|
Emma Frost StatueWe have a winner! Where do you want me to send the life size Emma Frost as White Queen doll? ;)
1) That is too friggin sweet!
2) I am glad the wife took the debit card with her or I'd be in trouble tonight. :D
More important it's a good thing she doesn't read this thread. Then we would see evil.
Hey, you guys stop lustin' after my woman!
|
|
Hey, was that comic using the historical Hellfire clubs as an inspiration? Now there's a great element of evil to add to any game!Knowing Marvel at the time, it probably was to one extent or another.
It was, I belive that was acknowledge quite a while ago. Actually visited the Hellfire Caves in England when I lived there, awesome and creepy place.
|
|
Any one where he once again was willing to do anything that increased his own personal power, no matter what the cost... so pretty much any one. His entire rise to power as head of SHEILD at the expense of his friends, even going so far as to use mind controled villains to hunt down his own allies proved his true measure.
. . . and to think I gave up b@@!%ing about Civil War years ago . . . ;)
Once in a while in one of the crossovers they would remember that it was originally suppose to be hard to figure out what side was the right one and have Tony act like a human being for a while. I seem to remember the X-Men Civil War crossover was one such event, even though it was promptly ignored by Storm's appearances in Black Panther.
Civil War: Not just a a bad idea, but a continuity nightmare . . . thanks Joe Quesada!
Now JQ is a great example of evil. The bastard murdered my childhood heroes all the way around.
Ugh, and the way Normie came to power by publicly killing a Skrull. Lame!
|
|
More important it's a good thing she doesn't read this thread. Then we would see evil.Emma Frost StatueWe have a winner! Where do you want me to send the life size Emma Frost as White Queen doll? ;)
1) That is too friggin sweet!
2) I am glad the wife took the debit card with her or I'd be in trouble tonight. :D
You forget my wife, she lust after Emma Frost as badly as I do... and She Hulk, and Ms Marvel.... :P