Okay, I've got several settings that this applies to. I think that the problem is that I am too logical. I can understand someone getting mad about something but there usually is some sort of logic behind it ( or a mistake in logic). The problem I've discovered that I have is that I just don't get it.

I've got no problem understanding greed but only to a certain point. I understand crimes of passion but only to a certain point. I just don't understand evil.

For instance I've got my STLPunk setting with a megacorp called Titan. They moved out into space without governments. The problem is that they decided after a while that they were a better government. They explored the belt and declared it their own. They also decided that there were so many humans that they didn't need to really care about their welfare if they didn't meet certain standards. They have no courts of law or inherent rights so instead of a legal proceeding any person is first tested for value and then if they are not worth it they are put into waste recycling.

The Earth comes out and tells them they can't do that to people so Titan causes a civil war on earth to get them out of the way. The earth comes back and says, "let's try that again" and beats the crap out of Titan. Now Titan has formed more into more of a nation and is preparing to take most of their old territories in the belt back.

The players are Belter truck drivers caught in the middle. That is the source of the conflict.

Now my problem is that I can't seem to understand why Titan would take any stance but the more logical one and form back into a megacorp. I know that I need them that way but I guess I can't figure out why anyone doesn't do the most logical course of action.

I know that this is a weird one but I just wouldn't be me if I didn't come up with off the wall questions.

For me, it would be out of spite. If I was Titan, I'd want my territory back for the sheer reason of earth had knocked me back the last time. I believe I'm right. Not only right, I believe my way is the RIGHT way. Morally and ethically, I think I'm right. I don't need to go to war just for me, I need to go to war for them. It's for their good as much as mine.

I agree, although it seems cliche' so say it, I believe that very very few people actually think themselves as being 'evil', and its always possible to look at things through a lens that is more rosy towards "us" and darker towards "them".


Military strikes at innocent civilian targets? Well if they are supporting the military forces you oppose then they aren't really that 'innocent' anymore are they?


Destroying entire cities/outposts in order to take out the opposing forces factories? Well if they were to continue to churn out military supplies then its a legitimate target, and if churning out civilain goods, doing so is likely to hurt the enemy's moral.


Using WMDs on cities that aren't really that important to the war effort? A strong show of force and the strength of will to use it might force the enemy to surender and save lives on both sides in the long run.

There are several ways to logically look at evil.

For greed, whether for money or power, you need to understand that it can become an addiction, at which point there can never be enough of it, and it becomes an all-consuming drive. Hate can be the same way.

Greed and other selfish motivations go hand-in-hand with rationalizations to make it not sound so bad, and eventually the evil person can even believe in these rationalizations. One of the more common ones is to demonize the people whom your goals put you into conflict with. Another is to cloak your own motivations in high-sounding rhetoric.

When strong drives have taken over you, and you see the whole world through self-imposed blinders, your actions won't be logical any longer - except to you.

What you need to do is hit the library. There's this excellent book called Evil - A primer. Might help you out.

'Evil - a primer'? Is this a fiction book or what? and by whom?

No, a social studies book. Written by a dude named William Hart. Talks about how evil is just a construct, and how "evil" people just made hard choices.

No sweat, man. It's a primer, so it can be very glossed over certain aspects of what its dealing with, but it's a good quick page turner with some good ideas.

I must agree with everyone above. Real evil only exists in worlds such as the D&D multiverse and the Buffyverse , where it is a perfectly valid lifestyle choice and a cause worth fighting for. In those cases, evil for evil's sake is perfectly reasonable.

In other contexts, there is no such thing as true evil. There are only decisions that others may not agree with. The motivation for a rapist or or serial killer is obvious, individual pleasure. The only reason their actions seem evil is that we do not value their pleasure nearly as much as they do.
For the Nazis, the issue was nationalism, consolidating power for Germany. The Holocaust made sense at the time. The ethnic cohesion of the Jews and the Romani threatened German homogeny, in theory. Having any independent international political faction within one's own political system is dangerous and has the potential to undermine national sovereignty. It just happens that the reality was far from that. While Jews and Romani had ethnic solidarity, the lack of centralized political order made it quite difficult for either of them them to undermine the government of any nation. But, from the point of view of the people responsible for the Holocaust, it was a reasonable way to eliminate a real threat.

In the case of Titan, nationalism is as good a reason as any. Even the people in extermination camps waiting for disposal can have national pride and patriotism. They may not agree with the government that is trying to kill them but they darn sure aren't going to let any Earthlings come in and occupy their country.

...ahh like ethnic cleansing in the Balkans

All a matter of persepctive. Practical policy if you were on Milosevic's side. Evil if you were Croatian.

[edit]

...forgot the at the end

I don't really buy into the idea that evil is something that only exists from some external perspective, and that "evil" people are always doing what they think is right. Simply from my own personal perspective, I face moral choices all of the time, and (gasp) don't always make what I would consider the "right" choice. So I don't think other people will be any different.

A lot of times, people will knowingly do things that they consider "evil". And that's where you get the justifications, rationalizations, and other self-imposed blinders from. And even then, it's not always enough. Not every criminal is cool with what they are doing - some of them are eaten up with guilt by it. And I don't automatically assume that everyone's motivations are what they claim they are, either. The terrorist leader might believe his own justifications, but then again, maybe it's simply B.S.

Even if you consider good and evil to be completely subjective, you still need to remember that it's not just a label we paint others with, but a label we paint ourselves with.

An Evil character doesn't worry about moral repercussions to their choices, they either balance the rate of profit/loss/risk, or have already decided what course of actions they wish to pursue. It may not be the most logical thing for your example corporation/nation to become a corporation again. After all, they would once again be subject to the whims of the corporate court, and would be under the umbrella of another country in at least some format.

It's not really that Evil is a construct of society, after all ( a society can pick up on behavior and action patterns that are detrimental to its continued function) so much as Good is a construction of societal norms. Actions that are deemed evil are also subject to societal interpretation.

For Example:

The small remaining population in a city are starving, and food that is had is very limited. A boy gives extra food to a sick/dying old man. (In our society a noble and good action). The old man has presumably led a long life. The food gets the old man through the day, but really, would it have been better for the people of the city if he had let the old man die, to increase, even partially, the amount of food the remaing people had available to them? If the old man was dead, he wouldn't need any of the food that the remaing healthy (albeit starving) people do need. Wasting the food in the manner that the boy did could, in fact, be determined to be evil.

When trying to understand Evil motivations, remember that evil characters and people (in fiction and in real life) are unbounb by average moral considerations when making decisions, regardless of how they make those decisions.

Yes but Glyph, even when you make the decisions that you know are "wrong" I seriously doubt that you think of yourself as slightly more "evil" because of it.

Sure, people do feel guilt over what they do, sometimes even if they 'buy' the logical justifications for having done the said action, but even then I doubt that very many of them consider themselves as 'evil'.

I guess that part of my problem is that I tend to subconsciously project my own sense of honor on others. It's hard for me to comprehend their choices not because I don't understand that they have different goals but I assume a certain humanity in all people. I know that a lot of people have a desire to tow the line even in the face of things that they know is wrong but that line of logic falls apart for me the larger the numbers get. I keep thinking that people have enough innate goodness in them that even if they aren't brave enough to fight back themselves they could leave the leaders out to dry in any number of ways.

Basically I seem to be caught between how dark to make my villains. If I make them too dark then they seem fake to me. If I make them too light then they don't function as villains. I can understand religious fanatics can't see past their own doctrines but most other people I believe some where in themselves can be reasoned with.

I guess my problem is that I can't make myself not sympathize so much with them that I can view them as effective enemies.

It may have to do with the kinds of novels I tend to read which are historical fiction or scifi. The historical are more about culture clashes that mostly get worked out later. The scifi seems to be more about ideas and technology.

Maybe it would help if I could read some novels with some realistic political enemies. One that isn't about religious fanatics. The enemies I have come from a corporate background. Does anyone know of a good read that might point me in the right direction?

Aye, mate. Try this on for size:
http://www.amazon.ca/Safe-Democracy-Secret...76425284&sr=8-4

It shows a lot of the CIA's less than well known dealings throughout the world in the past 30 years. It will give you a ton of ideas for how evil is inherently subtle and corporate in its approach if it is to be successful. Evil is just what you call the guy with desires opposed to your own.

I believe that people do know that they are doing evil and most of the time they abandon any concept that it matters because that is easier. I think that it isn't just a rationalization but a choice along the way to be a little less human. If we don't care about the people around us and we don't connect with them then we don't have to keep feeling that guilt. The people around us become annoyances.

"Evil" is created when an observer makes the deliberate choice not to understand the motivations of an actor. Therefore, to GM evil believably, you must find motivations for an action that your players will refuse to understand the motivations of.

~J

To the OP

Evil is nothing more thatn the same concepts you say you _can_ understand.

Greed. Hate. Fear (this is a big one). Love. Anger. Desire. Revenge.

A nice helping of tribalism helps - the "other people" are different and therefore not quite human.

Its just a matter of degree. In one case, you shout at your neighbor for letting his dog bark all night. In the other, you strap a bomb to your teenaged kid and send him into a crowded supermarket.

From my experience, there are three kinds of evil. There are people who do evil things but believe that they are good (the Nazis, terrorists, Humanis) There are people who do evil things and know that they are wrong, but do them anyway. Usually this involved justifications such as "I had to do it to survive." Or it involves an emotionally unstable person who acts in anger. The third is someone who believes that good and evil don't exist, and because of this there is no point in going out of your way not to hurt other people. If one method would get you ten dollars, and another would get you fifteen and involve killing a guy, and there are no consequences, you go for the fifteen, because what do you owe that guy anyway?

okay Thanks guys. I think that the problem was the way I was processing the issue. I didn't realize that I was making a logical error in defining Evil. I think that I was processing it too much as an abstract and not as a label or point of view.

I think that I have got Titan figured out now. I am also concentrating the beliefs more concretely into a specific character. That way I can have him rationalize things for Titan and the reader can see his point of view in action.

I also realized that I was having to push his logic too much because I wasn't having him go far enough. I was trying to rationalize his actions by making him meaner. Now I have him making more sense because his plans are larger and saner to me.

...post off limits for Rhapsody participants.