UP ON A SOAPBOX
Play a villain? An evil idea
by Brian Blume

 

-	-	-	-	-
Dragon #57	-	The Forum	-	Dragon magazine

It is very difficult to believe that any
intelligent AD&D™ player would deliberately
choose to play a character of evil
alignment.

Of course, AD&D games, being made
of the stuff of heroic fantasy, necessarily
deal with the concepts of good and evil
— how else could characters perform
brave and heroic deeds if no evil beings
existed to vanquish? Thus, the game
must allow for evil characters to exist.
But, as in real life, no thinking player
should want a life of evil with all its inherent
disadvantages.

In real life, evil people tend to be ostricized
from society. No one trusts them; no
one co-operates with them. Play in the
AD&D game, if the DM and the players
portray their roles correctly, reflects
these disadvantages in even a more pronounced
manner than in real life.

The Dungeon Masters Guide defines
the <neutral> evil sentiment this way: “This ethos
holds that seeking to promote weal (welfare)
for all actually brings woe to the
truly deserving. Natural forces which are
meant to cull out the weak and stupid are
artificially supressed by so-called Good
and the fittest are wrongfully held back,
so whatever means are expedient can be
used by the powerful to gain and maintain
their dominance, without concern
for anything.” Thus a player choosing to
play an evil character, in order to play the
role of the character properly, must follow
this creedo faithfully: Might makes
right. The strong take whatever they
want from the weak. Justice has no
meaning. Only the strong have the right
to survive and rule. Concepts like loyalty,
honor and truth are meaningless.

It is easy to see what events will follow
in a well-played game where one player
of a group chooses to adopt the role of
an evil character. No one can trust that
character — and many will find it nearly
impossible to co-operate with a character
they cannot trust. The player portraying
the evil character, if playing the role
properly, eventually will not be invited to
the games with other players and will
have to go on adventures alone. (This is
a horrible fate!) As in real life, teamwork
and co-operation are vital to achieving
the greatest amount of success in a well
run game; this is the essence of the
AD&D game. A person who must adventure
by themselves is at an incredible
disadvantage.

In games where several players choose
to adopt evil roles, the results are even
more profound if the roles are played
properly and the game is well run. No
one can trust anyone else. The characters
will continually strive at crosspurposes
to become the most powerful
at the expense of the others. Co-operation
will be nonexistent. When one succeeds
at becoming the most powerful
and starts dominating the others, the
group will either disintegrate into separate
solitary adventurers or the weaker
players will continually look for an opportunity
to crush the leader at a moment
of weakness. Under these circumstances,
it is impossible for one or more
evil characters to complete and be as
successful as a group of good characters
whose byword in cooperation.

Thus, evil in the game has the same
effects as evil in real life. There is no trust
and no co-operation, only fear and
hatred.

One final insult to evil is built into the
game. Certain valuable magic items, especially
magic swords, are usable only
by characters of certain alignments, and
the number of such items are available to
evil characters is severly limited. Using
the example of magic words, only 15% of
all magic swords are usable by evil characters,
as opposed to the 35% that are
usable by neutral characters and the
55% that are usable by good characters.
This is definately a discouragement to
evil characters.

In real life, evil people end up friendless
and unwanted. They exist only by
creating fear in those they can dominate.
In a well-played role, an AD&D character
will end up in exactly the same position.
To repeat the opening statement . . . It is
very difficult to believe that any intelligent
AD&D player would deliberately choose
to play a character of evil alignment in
the course of their game.

FORUM
There?s been a lot of controversy in the gaming
hobby over those FRP games where the players
run evil PCs and get their thrills by performing
heinous deeds and disgusting acts. I don?t mean
ordinary games where some of the PCs have such
human but unendearing traits like vanity, selfishness,
and a hunger for power; I mean games
where most or all PCs are dedicated to downright
Evil with a capital E.

Although there are too many arguments
against playing evil campaigns for me to review
all of them here, I can easily sum up the defense
offered by those who advocate evil campaigns. I
have yet to read or hear anyone defending their
involvement in evil campaigns who has any valid
point but this one: Everyone is taking our games
too seriously; it?s just a game, and we?re only
doing it for fun.

On the surface, this defense seems reasonable.
After all, in ordinary FRP games there?s lots of
violence, supernatural forces, and peculiar religions,
all of which have made many non-gamers
attack and condemn our hobby. Even though
these critics refuse to see it, we all know that ?it?s
just a game,? make-believe and let?s pretend.
Why should the rest of us similarly condemn the
players of evil PCs? So they?ve tortured a paladin
or two; the rest of us have all slaughtered dozens
of orcs. Surely those players wouldn?t torture
anyone in real life. Aren?t the rest of us just being
hypocrites?

No, we?re not. The ?it?s just a game? defense
begs one very important question: Just why do
the players of evil PCs enjoy the sufferings of
those who in no way deserve pain and death?
Role-playing involves what the name implies ?
acting out roles, giving life to our deepest fantasies.
Whether they like it or not, evil-style players
are revealing that they enjoy fantasies of inflicting
suffering upon the innocent and that they fantasize
about wanting power so much that they don?t
care how they get it.

Let me make clear right now what I am not
saying. I am not viewing these evil campaigns
from a moral or religious standpoint. Since I?m
far from a religious person, I have no right to say
that these games are ?bad? or ?impious? in an
absolute sense. Since the games don?t harm other
people, no more can I condemn them on the basis
of secular morality. Finally, never would I claim
that the players of these games are in any way
more ?evil? than the rest of us. Except for a few
saints, every human being has thoughts, impulses,
and fantasies that can be called evil.

What I am talking about is psychology. Although
everyone has evil impulses at times, few
of us give these impulses a lovingly detailed
expression in our games, nor do we spend long
hours dwelling upon and cultivating this side of
our personality as do the players in evil campaigns.
I maintain that spending all that time
pretending to be evil is dangerous to the players
themselves.

First of all, let?s consider why such evil-style
players are fascinated enough with evil to develop
campaigns around it. Psychologists have done
many studies about people who read violent
books and watch violent and amoral movies to
the exclusion of other kinds of entertainment.
They?ve found that violence and evil seem glamorous
to people who feel angry, and thus want to
hurt someone else the way they?ve been hurt, and
who feel weak and powerless in their own lives.
Fantasizing about being powerful, ruthless, and
evil is a compensation for something that the
fantasizer lacks in reality. Rather than being a
sign of strength, a preoccupation with evil is a
sign of weakness. When a gaming group gets
together to develop an evil campaign, they are
sharing their weaknesses and reinforcing them.

Even normal FRP games have a certain element
of compensation, of course. Life is never
perfect, and we live today in troubled times.
When we feel that we can?t do anything about
nuclear war or our boring job, it?s very satisfying
to go into the game world and kill those lousy
orcs who are threatening the peaceful village.
Our mental image of the head orc may even bear
a marked resemblance to our boss or some political
figure. Since we can?t kill the troublemaker in
real life (and in fact, wouldn?t even want to), this
kind of compensation is healthy. At least in our
fantasies, we can take the side of the good and
deal decisively with problems that we can?t touch
in real life.

For the players in evil campaigns, however, the
release of being the good guys simply isn?t
enough. They want to wreak havoc, not merely
let off a little steam ? a sign that their anger and
pain run very deep indeed. In a way, the decision
to play evil PCs is a sign of despair, an indication
that the players feel that evil is stronger than
good, that the good can?t really score any lasting
or satisfactory victories, and that the individual
might as well stop fighting and get what he can
for himself.

Previously I called this style of game dangerous.
One of the dangers is simply that by releasing
a bit of their feelings of weakness in their
games, the players will feel no need to deal with
their real problems. A much greater danger,
however, is that these things snowball. Rather
than releasing and getting rid of evil impulses,
dwelling on an evil campaign tends to strengthen
them simply because of the way any role-playing
game develops.

We all remember our first few FRP sessions,
where killing a giant rat or a couple of orcs was a
real thrill and felt really dangerous. As we gained
experience and skill, we needed greater challenges
to reproduce that same feeling of excite-
ment. The same thing happens in evil campaigns.
Let me tell you a true story, which I heard from a
gamer I?ll call Bob. (I?m sure he wouldn?t want
his real name used here.)

For several years, Bob played an ordinary
D&D campaign with a group of close friends.
Then, when they began playing an all-evil campaign,
they started out on a very low level of
?atrocity.? First they killed an unbearably selfrighteous
paladin, then graduated to robbing rich
merchants. Their best thief character took a leaf
from the comics and risked life and limb to write
?the king is a fink? on the king?s own tower wall.
Good clean fun? Certainly, but it didn?t stop
there. Soon someone pointed out that they
weren?t really being evil, merely naughty.

The group played for several months, with the
ante getting higher and higher. Soon they were
stealing from the starving poor, burning temples
and forcing the priests to stay inside to burn with
them, and torturing prisoners in more and more
inventive ways. Finally, some of the players
insisted on having their characters gang-rape and
murder a princess. At this point, the two women
in the group rebelled. They forced a discussion of
the issue by reading a list of every crime the
group?s characters had committed in the name of
good fun. ?Listening to that list in cold blood,?
Bob told me, ?was a sickening experience.? No
one in the group could even look at anyone else
in embarrassment.

What really shook Bob, though, was the way in
which he and his friends grew emotionally and
morally calloused as their characters? crimes grew
worse. At the beginning, no one would even have
thought of committing a brutal rape and murder
? it wouldn?t have seemed fun at all. By the end,
the idea seemed perfectly logical. Of course, the
NPCs who were the victims of these crimes were
just a few lines of description and a handful of
statistics, but even so, the group began by having
some compassion for these imaginary people and
ended up by having none. Since compassion is
one of the things that makes us human, not
animals, I maintain that eroding one?s sense of
compassion is too high a price to pay for a few
evenings of entertainment.

By now, I?m sure that any evil-style players
reading this are sneering at me and Bob?s group
and assuring themselves that they can keep things
under control. I doubt this. What we?re dealing
with when we play FRP games is group psychology,
and groups and their momentum have a real
power over the individual members who make
them up. Anyone weak enough to be in an evil
campaign in the first place is going to find himself
drawn to more and more ?creative? acts of evil.
Finding out just how dark and nasty their minds
can be is only going to increase their sense of
being powerless, weak, and out of control.

Please notice that the above does not refer to
the player who occasionally runs an evil PC or
who likes neutral but dashing thief characters.
I'm talking about the ardent players of evil
campaigns who get angry whenever someone
suggests that there?s something odd about their
favorite sport. These players are doubtless steaming
right now, thinking that I?m way off base,
because once again someone is making ?too
much? out of a simple game. To them I say that
if you think poison, torture, murder, and rape are
fun, then you've got a big problem, even if you
confine that problem to fantasies.

Katharine Kerr
San Francisco, Calif.
(Dragon #89)

*    *    *    *

I have finally passed the limit of that which I
can endure without reply. Disparaging remarks
about evil PCs, from both game designers and
players, leap from the pages of this magazine.
Passing insults can be ignored, but Ms. Kerr's
letter in issue #89 was the last straw. Everyone is
entitled to an opinion, but condemning what
should logically be one-third of all characters on
the basis of one warped campaign is ridiculous.
It?s about time someone stands up for the ?bad
guys.?

To take a cue from E. Gary Gygax, "Good
isn't stupid." Evil isn't stupid either, nor is it sick.
No reasonably sane party of characters would
take the course of action taken by the party Ms.
Kerr writes about. If these actions follow the
precepts of any alignment, it is chaos, and chaos
and evil are far from interchangeable, as any LE
character would tell you. However, insanity
seems to be a better choice to explain the actions
of those characters. (See DMG p. 84, specifically
sado-masochism and homicidal mania.)

I have played the D&D game since its first
publication in 1974, and my longest-lived and
most powerful character is a wizard of lawful evil
alignment, as are his wife (a thief), their adventuring
companions, and their henchmen. In nine
years of regular campaigning we have never
reached the level of depravity described in
?Bob?s? campaign, nor has any other group of
evil PCs with which I am acquainted. We have
robbed princes and merchants, tortured prisoners
for vital information, poisoned a pesky paladin,
and helped a goblin army destroy an elven outpost.
We have also rescued a very good princess,
stopped a demon invasion, and broke the local
assassins? guild. The actions of an evil party?
Certainly. And no PC has ever stolen from the
poor, destroyed, killed, or tortured without cause.
Why? Because they are acting like proper evil
characters!

The DMG states that ?Evil . . . does not <link>
concern itself with rights or happiness; purpose is
the determinant? and a quick look at the specific
evil alignments shows what the one and only
purpose is: power. If a seemingly good act is the
most expedient method of increasing one?s power,
any proper evil character will take that course.
Actions which threaten one?s power with no
potential for gain will be avoided. Robbing the
poor, immolating temples and clerics, and raping
princesses do not provide the character with any
advantage and gain one numerous enemies. Rob
a wealthy merchant and you may have to face
several well-armed fighters, which is bad enough.
But start stealing from the starving poor and you
may end up with hundreds of scythe and
pitchfork-wielding peasants, a potentially fatal
situation for even the most powerful PC. Any
group of characters which did perform such
heinous deeds would be continually hunted and
harassed. This is hardly conducive to expanding
one?s power. The DM must make the consequences
of any such actions evident ? heads
adorning poles and bodies swinging from ropes
were common sights during the medieval times.
This is why, to belie Ms. Kerr?s assertion, most
campaigns with evil PCs do not degenerate to the
level described.

As to Ms. Kerr?s assumption that those who
play evil PCs are ?weak,? I must ask: Who is
weaker ? he who resists temptation or he who
walls himself in so as to face no temptation? Any
player of a good character who had that character
murder an innocent, helpless victim could, and
should, suddenly find himself at a lower experience
level due to alignment shift, or even, as in
the case of paladins and good clerics, stripped of
all his power. The ?thrill? of committing such an
act is hardly worth the cost, so this is no temptation.
But what of the evil thief who, in the course
of robbing a manor, chooses not to kill the sleeping
guard, knowing that he could do so easily and
with no repercussions? Which player has shown
greater strength of character?

No, Ms. Kerr, you were not ?making too
much of a simple game.? Our games can tell us a
lot about ourselves. But your conclusion that any
campaign with evil PCs must deteriorate to the
level you described, based on observation of a
single campaign allowed to get out of hand by all
involved, is as absurd as assuming, after one visit
to the police drunk tank, that anyone who drinks
socially will become an alcoholic.

Scott Hicks
Nanuet, N.Y.

*    *    *    *    *

Katharine Kerr?s letter concerning role-playing
evil player characters was quite interesting.
However, there are a few additional points to be
made.

In a world where the PCs tend toward a good
alignment, the campaign is typically a struggle of
good (the PCs) vs. evil. Guess who gets to play
the evil? Yup, the DM. He or she is continuously
plotting against the players? characters trying to
think up some new and ingenious way for them
to meet their doom while they are on an adventure.
Is the DM heading for the psychiatrist?s
couch?

Probably not, since the purpose of the game is
for the players to have fun, and not many people
think of dying as a fun time. So the DM who
continually succeeds at killing off most of the PCs
in his world will soon find himself without any
players. No players implies no campaign, which
implies no more design of nasty plots ? sort of a
self-quenching problem.

The DM who thinks of all these nasty plots but
allows his players to work their way through them
isn?t going to go off the deep end either, since by
allowing the PCs a way out he is telling us that he
sides with the good guys.

An evil campaign, if the players role-play their
characters correctly, will fall apart due to the
nature of the beast. Treason, revenge, and backstabbing
will come to the forefront, destroying
any teamwork which may exist. The PCs will
spend more time killing each other than playing
in the campaign. Due to the high turnover rate in
PCs, level advancement will be very slow. The
few PCs that do survive and make it to a respectable
level will either have the rest of the PCs
completely afraid of dealing with them, or will
have the PCs gunning for them to get their stuff.
In any case, the campaign grinds to a halt.

For an evil campaign to succeed (within the
structure of the AD&D rules) two steps have to be
met. The first, as shown in the previous paragraph,
is that the players must incorrectly roleplay
their characters. The second is that the DM
must mess with the game balance. As mentioned
earlier, the AD&D game is set up as a good vs.
evil struggle where the game balance is tipped
slightly in favor of the forces of good. In this way,
the players in a campaign composed of PCs
striving toward a good cause will win their battles
? if they play the game to the best of their abilities.
If the DM holds this game balance in his evil
campaign, the PCs will not survive. So, he adjusts
the balance, and the player characters
advance.

By meeting these two steps, the DM and the
players have mutated the game. Their version
can?t be that much fun to play in the long run.

Steve Null
Indialantic, Fla.

*    *    *    *

I am sure that I am not alone when I say that
Katharine Kerr's article about evil PCs (The
forum, issue #89) left me both disturbed and
contemplative. Her analysis truly frightened me
into thinking that players who run evil characters
have some serious emotional problems. I must
say, however, that Ms. Kerr is not the only person
to have done some studying in psychology.
After a second reading of her letter I found myself
in disagreement with her opinion. Although I
have never played a "truly evil" character such
as Katharine describes, I feel that she has overdramatized
the situation a bit. Granted perhaps
that a few of these people [who play evil characters]
may have slight emotional difficulties, but
the overwhelming majority are normal people
who may now feel like psychotics after reading
Ms. Kerr's letter.

There is a relatively simple explanation of why
some people run evil characters in an adventure
campaign. The fact is that an AD&D campaign
presents an easy way for a person to free his
feelings, be it anger or happiness. This to me
seems a rather safe way to deal with certain
negative impulses, which is far better than letting
hostile emotions cause conflict in the real world.
After all, evil PCs are causing harm to paper
NPCs, not real human beings. Many therapists
tell their patients to beat up a pillow or punching
bag if they are angry at someone or something,
rather than the source of their anger. Likewise,
an AD&D campaign works as an excellent outlet
for a player?s emotions, whether the emotions are
positive or negative.

There is another important reason why some
people play evil characters. The fact is that doing
socially unacceptable things has a forbidden
appeal. The idea of ?getting away with it? has a
bigger appeal than the act itself. Thus, eviloriented
characters get pleasure knowing they are
doing something socially prohibited and escaping
punishment. They realize that they can?t (and
wouldn?t want to) commit the same acts in the
real world, so a fantasy setting provides an enjoyable
substitute.

In no way am I encouraging players to commit
crimes and cruelty against peaceful NPCs at the
first opportunity. I am basically a good-aligned
player, preferring the roles of sturdy rangers and
beneficial wizards. But saying that players who
run evil characters are emotionally insecure, or
neurotic, may do more harm than anything else.
Those who run evil PCs and find themselves
being labeled ?dark and nasty? may develop a
negative attitude toward themselves. After a
while this label may begin to hinder their emotional
growth and they will think they are dark
and nasty because of another?s opinion. This is
known as a self-fulfilling prophecy, in which
another?s label upon someone else helps to govern
the labeled person?s actions. And this is much
more damaging than stabbing a paper NPC can
ever get.

Christopher R. Kopec
Ramsey, N. J
Dragon #92

*    *    *    *

The basic premise of the game is good winning
over evil and Katharine Kerr's letter in #89
details the dangers involved when we stray from
this attitude. I?m glad to see her taking time to
think about the philosophy of the game instead of
being worried over minor inconsequential details.
I feel that role playing games where players
develop an individual persona are quite different
from campaigns where entire armies are being
controlled by one player; it?s almost comparable
to the difference between intuition and logic.

I am DM for a group of ?oldies? but goodies.
We?re in it strictly for fun and socializing. I stress
storytelling and role playing, especially, encouraging
interaction among the players. I think the
game is at its best when they are ignoring the
DM and discussing things among themselves.

By acting out what you would do, in a role
playing manner, in a hypothetical situation, you
can learn what you might do in real life under
similar circumstances. This is why the game is so
intriguing. Just as adversity can bring people
closer together, role playing in a good constructive
manner can let you see that which people
rarely get a chance to exhibit. Leadership ability,
initiative, problem solving abilities, quick thinking,
imagination, humor, generosity, compassion,
and a whole range of other values can be tested
and exhibited when the DM does his job. Role
playing can bring out and strengthen your inner
values. As good should always triumph over evil,
it is destructive to the players to allow them to
succeed while playing evil characters. The exception
is if you have players of sufficient maturity
and self awareness who are secure enough in their
own beliefs to realize that by playing an evil
character they, and the group, can learn how evil
works, how it thinks, how it can be dangerous,
and apply this knowledge to improving their
advantage when it comes to fighting evil, in the
game or in reality. Although I disapprove of evil
in games coming out on top, we must realize that
evil often wins in reality.

Evil characters bother my sense of propriety. I
try to stress to the players that their characters be
basically good, even though they may have a few
weaknesses or personality flaws of minor significance.
As a DM, evil makes me uncomfortable
and I only feel I?m doing my job when the players
recognize evil and take steps to combat it.

Greg Meier
Bruce, Wis.

*    *    *    *

All the controversy recently published in The
forum over the question of evil PCs brings to my
mind a fairly basic question that has not been
discussed very much, if at all ? a question the
answer to which has fairly important implications
both for role playing and for judging alignment
deviations.

Is the AD&D/D&D moral/ethical, good/evil
alignment system supposed to be based on contemporary
20th-century, Judeo-Christian, American
morality or on medieval European morality?

The two are not the same. The milieu of the
AD&D game is generally medieval; that of the
D&D game is specifically 15th-century European.
The settings are not, of course, identical, but
"similar to."

It is definitely spelled out that "good" PCs do
not use poison, and it is generally accepted that
they do not use torture. But, in the 15th century,
torture was recognized as a legitimate tool by
both church and state. We have our own ideas
about that today, but the Inquisition certainly
considered it necessary to root out evil, usually to
obtain confessions on charges of witchcraft or
heresy. That is, it was accepted by political and
religious entities who certainly considered themselves,
and were considered at the time, altogether
lawful and the personification of "good."

The definition of "good" beliefs on page 23 of
the DMG paraphrases the United States Declaration
of Independence: "Each creature is entitled
to life, relative freedom, and the prospect of
happiness,"

We all know what 15th and 16th century
European explorers were like. Nowadays, we
tend to regard Cortes as some sort of inhuman
monster. At the time he lived, he was considered
a paragon, almost a paladin, and was richly
rewarded. Yet PCs adventuring on the Isle of
Dread (D&D Expert module X1) are expected to
behave like enlightened 20th-century anthropologists.
If they behaved in consonance with their
social/moral/ethical background -- assuming it to
be similar to 15th-century Europe, and how and
why would it be otherwise? -- the DM would
brand them all chaotic in a hot second.

So perhaps we can assume that somehow we
are dealing with more or less modern standards of
good and evil, despite the fact that the setting [of
the game] is medieval. Certainly this is acceptable
for a game universe, although the sociological/
philosophical bases of such an ethical system
remain unexplained [in the rules].

So how and in what way is 20th-century American
morality consistent with feudalism? With
lawful good religious intolerance (as exemplified
and seemingly parodied in St. Cuthbert of the
Cudgel)? With putting down peasant revolts
(DMG, page 94)? Establishing territories
(AD&D) or dominions (D&D)? With social caste
based on birth? With a hundred other medieval
customs and practices that are accepted in the
context of the game?

In other words, what we have is some schizophrenic
duality in the alignment definitions of
good and evil. There are plenty of other questions,
such as: In what way is a respect for life
("Each creature is entitled to life . . .") consistent
with the commonplace theme/scenario of wellnigh
genocidal war on humanoids? Why is it
okay to kill and rob evil/chaotic creatures but not
good/lawful ones? But what I am concerned with
here is the incompatibility of modern and medieval
ethics and concepts of good/evil and the
ultimately futile attempt to impose a mixture of
both on PCs.

It seems to me that what is needed is some sort
of codified system that will spell out, with plenty
of specific examples, just what is to be considered
?good? and what ?evil? (or ?lawful? and ?cha-
otic?) in this game universe. For example, what
about killing humanoid ?young? (children)? If
you let them live, they will grow up to commit
further depredations on humanity. Perhaps, if left
alive, they would suffer miserable deaths from
neglect, since they presumably will now lack
adult care. On the other hand, killing helpless
creatures who have yet to reach maturity is
hardly consistent with the respect for life that is at
the heart of the good and lawful alignments,
embodied in statements such as "Lawful creatures
. . . care about all living things," taken from
the D&D game rules. Is the only acceptable
solution to take them to some sort of juvenile
rehabilitation center for monsters, which the PCs
would probably have to establish themselves?

Since we are talking about a game, we will
ignore the fact that, in real life, everyone has at
least five ?alignments,? no two of which may be
the same: what they say they believe, what they
think they believe, what they really believe subconsciously,
what they act like they believe, and
what other people think they believe. In the
worlds of the D&D and AD&D games, characters
have only one alignment ? what the DM says it
is. Ideally, the DM will agree that the character
has remained true to his or her chosen and professed
alignment. But if the character has not ?
poof! His alignment (and level) changes, and
there is no room for anyone to be two-faced,
much less five-faced.

In the absence of any published, codified
system of laws/rules of behavior and ethical
precepts, with the partial exception of that given
for cavaliers (Dragon #72), the only real solution
seems to be for everybody at the very beginning
of any campaign to sit down and agree on what,
within the context of the game, will be regarded
as good, evil, lawful, chaotic, or whatever. Specific
examples. Questions and answers. The
works. Sure, everyone can agree that building a
hospital or giving large sums of money is ?good?
(although many medieval barons might have had
grave doubts about that) and that assaulting a
princess is ?evil? (or at least ?sick?). But there
are plenty of gray areas. I?m afraid that this
process of predetermination is seldom undertaken,
with the result that the DM often makes
arbitrary, inconsistent judgments and the players
resort to convoluted rationalizations as to why a
given action was really ?good? or ?lawful.?

What this letter boild down to is this: Are we
judging alignment on the basis of modern ethics
or on the basis of medieval ethics or on both? If
both, then some sort of definition is needed.

David F. Godwin
Dallas, Tex.

*    *    *    *    *

I want to respond to two comments about my
"Forum" letter on evil PCs and all-evil campaigns.
In issue #91, Scott Hicks wrote at great
length to defend this kind of gaming, but he
utterly avoided my basic question: Why is playing
evil PCs so important in the first place, and
why does he derive such satisfaction from this
kind of fantasy? It?s a pity he missed the point,
because he seems to be in a good position to
answer those questions.

In issue #92, Christopher Kopec made a
thoughtful and well-reasoned attempt to answer
those questions, but I still feel that he fell a bit
short of the mark. First of all, he started with an
argument-by-exaggeration when he misinterpreted
me as saying that such players are
"psychotic." There is a world of difference between
a psychotic and someone with a few hangups
that bear examination.

Secondly, he compared the release of negative
emotions in an all-evil campaign with the release
of expressing such feelings in a therapy group.
There is another world of difference between
expressing negative feelings that are firmly anchored
in reality under the supervision of a
trained therapist and dwelling on morbid fantasies
in the company of a couple of friends. Besides,
it?s possible to release all kinds of emotions
by playing a good-aligned character. Christopher
thus leaves himself open to another question:
Why are his negative feelings directed at good
NPCs, not evil ones?

Katharine Kerr
San Francisco, Calif.
Dragon #94

*    *    *    *

Though he leaves the question unanswered, I
would like to compliment David Godwin on his
letter in The Forum of issue #93. He asks the
basic question of what is ?good? and what is
?evil? in the AD&D and D&D game systems.

In his letter David seems to lean toward the
idea that the definition and specific beliefs of each
alignment should be determined before a campaign
and then adhered to. This sounds nice, but
in a well-done campaign with much variety it
would not solve the problem. If it were to be
decided that ?good? believed in the absolute
right to life, it would not solve the problem of
what to consider the belief that humanoid young
should be killed in order that they not grow up to
cause trouble for humans and demi-humans. In
such circumstances it would seem that this belief
would be considered ?evil.? But how could this
be? Could a person who believes in sacrificing
ruthless humanoids to save friendly peasants, yet
also believes in the right of those peasants to
freedom and personal property, be just as ?evil?
as a corrupt dictator who overburdens the people
with taxes, is concerned with naught else but his
personal comfort, and kills all he even slightly
suspects are opposed to him?

All numbers and statistics regarding a character
in the game have the purpose of setting up
?reality.? A certain value will tell one how much
damage a character can withstand, while another
will relate how dextrous a character is. These
statistics are only half the game, though. Alignment
is the characteristic which regulates the
character?s beliefs or personality. Alignment, I
believe, was created to prevent radical, illogical
changes in a character?s behavior. This is done
through the harsh penalties inflicted when a
character changes alignment.

Because alignment is only meant to prevent
radical changes of belief and behavior, it is best to
set a character?s alignment through common
sense. (A person who believes in the basic right of
freedom is ?good,? while a person who constantly
kills people for no reason is ?evil.?) After determining
alignment, the player must then decide
upon the details of the character?s beliefs. Once
decided upon, these details must be followed
consistently, the player role-playing them as if
they were part of the alignment. The DM can
penalize the player for changing his belief just as
he does for a change in alignment (though it
would be a lesser penalty because it is a less
drastic change).

By considering alignment only a general area
of beliefs, one allows for greater variety in any
adventure. Similar methods can be used for
?lawful? and ?chaotic.?

David Miller
North Miami Beach, Fla.
Dragon #96
 

*    *    *    *

The current ?good vs. evil? debate in the
forum section seems rather pointless. Both sides
seem to ignore the main principle of the game,
namely to role-play. All of the game mechanics,
and this includes alignment, are designed to
make the game playable by systematizing a wide
variety of concepts both physical and abstract. To
me this means that all of these mechanics must be
subservient to the basic aim of the game, and
where they conflict with play of the game as you
interpret that, they should be modified or abandoned
in favor of something more workable.

To give a relevant example of this, in the
campaign I run alignment is used for two basic
purposes: to give some idea of how NPCs will
react to certain things, and to determine the
effects of such things as detect evil and picking up
aligned magic items. The players are expected to,
and do, role-play their characters. Recently an
assassin character risked his neck to save a complete
stranger from being hanged for a murder he
did not commit. This was entirely in character,
since Khamuel only kills as a profession and
believes that killing for other reasons is both
untidy and distasteful. The same character avoids
torture and definitely prefers veiled threats to
open violence. He is probably more ?good? than
some of his neutral companions. This is the way
the character has been developed, and I would
never dream of penalizing him for such actions.

It seems to me, therefore, that the alignment
system should be treated very carefully and
should never be allowed to interfere with the play
of the game.

Lastly, may I say that I am very cynical about
those characters who argue that ?good? is right
and then go out and slay indiscriminately all
those who get between them and their goal. I
would be interested to hear someone try to justify
such a position, especially from the lawful good
standpoint, which, according to the DMG,
believes that ?Each creature is entitled to life,
relative freedom, and the prospect of happiness.?
The only justification I can see is the incredible
arrogance that your sense of values is ?right?
over and above that of anyone else and that
therefore you have an arbitrary right to decide
which creatures are allowed to exercise their
rights and which are not. This comes down to
your right to decide which creatures may live and
which may die. Until someone can justify this
position, I hope no one will be so hypocritical as
to spout it while condemning others. The alignments
of characters in the AD&D game basically
come down to the degree of, and motive behind,
their evil.

David Finlayson
Sydney, Australia
Dragon #97

*    *    *    *

OUT ON A LIMB

‘Spice and intrigue’

Dear Editor:
I read an article in Up on a Soapbox in
DRAGON #57 that upset me greatly. It was the
article about how no “...intelligent AD&D™
player would deliberately choose to play a
character of evil alignment.” I have had many
experiences with evil player characters, both
as a Dungeon Master and as a player, and I
have found that evil characters not only have
the most fun, but they add spice and intrigue
to the campaign, which helps the other players
enjoy it more.

Brian Blume (the author) said that in real
life evil characters are ostracized from society;
that no one trusts them or cooperates with
them. In real life, who are the evil people? Are
they the thieves and robbers who terrorize
people and roam the streets? Yes, sometimes;
but evil also abounds in government, big business,
and many other respectable professions.
Evil and criminal are not always synonymous.
Evil merely implies that the person
is out for his own good and he doesn’t care
who gets trampled in the process. There are
thousands of people who fit this description
who have not been ostracized from the community.
Many are the most trusted members
of corporations and businesses.

He stated that no one can trust the evil
character because the evil character will not
cooperate with anyone. On the contrary, the
evil character will cooperate with anyone he
feels he can use to further his own ends. A
thief will need fighter cover in an adventure to
help him survive; an assassin will welcome the
help of spell casters and other adventurers to
cover his assassination attempts, and an evil
warlord will surround himself with other characters
to prevent personal injury from enemies.
Also, evil characters must advance in
levels, and will travel with a party and cooperate
in hopes of receiving treasure and experience.
As for being well played, an assassin
may indeed backstab when an adventure is
over for the extra experience, and a thief may
very well pick party pockets (with the party
none the wiser). Of course, a thief who has
sprung traps and opened locks for a party as
well as surprising opponents will definitely be
appreciated, if not trusted.

Mr. Blume also says that when an evil character
begins to dominate other party members,
the group will dissolve in chaos. In the
group I am DM for, the only evil player character
in the bunch is the second most powerful
character in the group (next to a druid). He
plays very independently and is often away
from the party, but he does benefit them in
some ways. He also keeps the other characters
on their toes, which keeps them from
getting too lax. His presence is appreciated in
the campaign. In another campaign, my friend
and I play a pair of neutral evil characters who
happen to be twin brothers. We are, by a small
margin, the two most powerful characters in
the party. The party itself is almost exclusively
evil and all the players are very independent.
No one trusts anyone else past basic bodily
defense, and “party treasure” is a rarity. All
the players and the Dungeon Master agree
this campaign is one of the best they have
ever known.
 

Christopher Miller
Grove City, Pa.
(Dragon #59)