Backstage - OOC Forums
EVE-Online RP Discussion and Resources => EVE Character Development => Topic started by: Casiella on 11 Nov 2010, 16:07
-
Nobody believes they're truly evil. They may recognize they're doing some harsh things, but at most they'll see it as necessary actions in service of a higher good. In the case of RP, however, we as players may recognize that our characters do evil. (Whether they are evil is a deeper question.)
So what do you enjoy playing? Characters you see as essentially good (if imperfect), or as essentially bad (if self-justified)? What tips do you have for the latter, more challenging character types?
-
I love playing villains.
Although I personally don't believe in "evil," as a concept (I'm with Kurt Vonnegut on the subject of human nature), I do believe in destructive thought patterns and the vast power of the human brain to do itself (and those around it) a mischief. People can rationalize in amazingly sophisticated ways, and our moral barriers are subject to change with sufficient application of logic.
That being the case, I tend to play highly intellectual forms of "evil," the sort that get around their moral qualms by reasoning them away rather than by ignoring the issue. It's an approach I'd suggest to anyone who is interested in investigating how intelligent, introspective people we would normally view as "corrupt" think.
Examples of this character type within Eve:
* A conservative Amarrian cleric, deeply knowledgeable, who believes the Minmatar as a people have forfeited their place in God's kingdom through rebellion, and must therefore be destroyed.
* A bookish Sani Sabik nihilist (of Nietzsche's school), who genuinely believes that "life itself is the will to power; nothing else matters," and seeks to expand his own power by any means available.
* An Equilibrium of Mankind member who looks on humanity as a plague, not just to the universe, but to itself, as well, and, seeing suffering as endemic to humanity, seeks to end it-- by ending the human race.
Suggestions for those who want to try this:
* Figure out your own more absolute barriers and work within them.
Constantly fighting the part of your brain that screams "NO!" every time you make a choice as your character is tiring and not much fun. I, personally, find it easier to callously blow up ten thousand fictitious people than I find it to be an inconsiderate jerk to just one, so my characters tend to be very polite monsters.
* Work out, in detail, where your character is coming from.
The fun part of playing an intellectual villain is getting down the twisted or subverted worldview. Religious fundamentalism is a highly-workable angle, as is jaded nihilism. Moral relativism can also lead to some fun places if you can work out an argument for why your own "relative" place calls for different morality from everybody else's.
* Don't try for perfection.
Getting in philosophical arguments is a "perk" of this approach. During the course of these, you will make mistakes. Unless your character is a megalomaniac, it will work to your advantage to admit to these, adjust your argument accordingly, and move on. Your character's worldview should be flexible enough to let you do this. Inflexible zealotry is for callous badasses and raving cultists, not thoughtful, sophisticated monsters.
*Corrupt, twist, distort, and corrupt some more.
A hallmark of this kind of character is that she thinks-- is downright convinced-- that she's right. This isn't the sort of "being convinced" that leads to unquestioningly following orders: the orders will be, all within the space of a breath, mentally questioned, found to be valid (or not), and followed (or not). The kind of character who does that will likely try to bring others around to her own point of view. After all, if they only understood, they'd see the truth in her words and join her.
Watch for opportunities. Plant seeds of doubt (or at least curiosity) in the minds of "younger" pilots and try to intercede when a more experienced one is experiencing a crisis. There's nothing like "counseling" a soul in torment to bring another believer to your side.
* Don't lie unless it's important.
Again, your character acts as she does because she has thought it all over and thinks she's come to the right conclusion. Such a character might not have many qualms about telling lies, but telling lies makes people less likely to trust her in the future. If she's going to spread that truth, it will be important for her to be trusted.
* Allow for growth, even redemption.
Playing a character functionally damned by her own logic is a blast, and watching people trying to navigate the maze to lead you back out is one of this angle's greater pleasures. However, if there is no way through at all, this will eventually get boring, with the character stuck in stasis. Change and redemption should be possible, but the "savior" should have to be an ace at getting between other people's ears to pull it off.
Intellectualizing a moral issue away is necessarily a process of rationalization, which serves as a shield against the parts of the brain that keep right on screaming "NO!" ... Unless the character is a psychopath, in which case, there's no "screaming bit" to shield. If there's anything there that can be "saved," there should be some key, some way to get through to the character.
This should by no means be easy (such characters should roll their eyes at almost any form of emotional appeal), and redemption need not be permanent.
Backsliding is fun, too.
-
Nobody believes they're truly evil. They may recognize they're doing some harsh things, but at most they'll see it as necessary actions in service of a higher good.
Actually, at least in Nikita's case, she's aware that she's evil, and she's revels in it. Then again, she's rather mentally unbalanced :P
also, I totally agree with what Aria said, and yes, I love playing a villain, and its really good advice.
-
(Aria rawks.)
-
People do things that are "wrong" all the time. They often know they are wrong when they are doing them. Why do they do them? Because they think they can get away with it, or they don't care if they get caught. Some think that "might makes right". Take what you can, give nothing back.
Are they justified? Are the self-justifying? Are they right or wrong? What if they just don't care?
Too much black and white, too much following of a script/character sheet, and believability goes out the window. Sometimes people do what they do not for some ideal, but because it's an option, and they have something to gain from it. Just one sip, just one touch, just one snort....
Of course that dovetails into the whole idea of moral decline, but then again no one stays the same forever. Don't be afraid of change. The noble Paladin sees that he's been deceived by a corrupt faith, just as the pirate may decide to change his ways in order to fight for some greater goal (not necessarily good, mind you. :bear: ).
OH, and Aria:
*Corrupt, twist, distort, and corrupt some more.
A hallmark of this kind of character is that she thinks-- is downright convinced-- that she's right. This isn't the sort of "being convinced" that leads to unquestioningly following orders: the orders will be, all within the space of a breath, mentally questioned, found to be valid (or not), and followed (or not). The kind of character who does that will likely try to bring others around to her own point of view. After all, if they only understood, they'd see the truth in her words and join her.
Watch for opportunities. Plant seeds of doubt (or at least curiosity) in the minds of "younger" pilots and try to intercede when a more experienced one is experiencing a crisis. There's nothing like "counseling" a soul in torment to bring another believer to your side.
SHHHH! That's like the biggest secret ever! And yes, I agree with you 100% on your points. :) Though, I always think that what Logic can do for the human psyche, complete ignorance of it's use can be just as destructive.
-
Well, I think 'good and bad' are definitely matters of perspective in the EVE universe. If for no other reason than all of the factions would be 'bad' by modern definitions; but mostly because of the morality that CCP established as existing in the :grimdark: universe of EVE, it's hard to say someone is "good" or "bad" with the code that's established.
Inara would never consider herself 'evil'. She'd say some of the things she's done could be considered evil, but necessary for protecting and providing for what she'd call "me and mine".
So what do you enjoy playing?
Actually, Inara is the first 'manipulator' I've ever played. And it's rather fun. Typically, I play the "quiet powerhouse" (reclusive sorcerer with a penchant for evocation, strong/silent fighter with big stick, etc...).
Characters you see as essentially good (if imperfect), or as essentially bad (if self-justified)?
Well, from the character's perspective I play essentially good. From an OOC perspective, that's up for debate on a per character basis. I tend to lean towards neutral to good characters (on Good/Evil axis).
Inara is what I'd call essentially neutral; she's not going to win any OOC paladin awards, but she's not out to burn the world either. Her reasoning makes her actions (within the EVE universe set of morality) not "evil" but they aren't enough reason to call her actions "good" either.
What tips do you have for the latter, more challenging character types?
Tips for the "essentially bad" character, the number one most important rule: Your character thinks they are good (most of the time) and the "good guys" are the "bad guys". The exception to this rule is people like The Operative from the movie Serenity, he was a "bad guy" so the "good guys" could have their happy world and continue to be "good guys".
Other than that, the only real thing people need to remember is that you character, even as a bad guy, is still going to have a fairly "normal" set of desires out of life. Just because you're evil doesn't mean you want to kick babies and eat eyeballs and take over the world with fire. Most evil people want a family, kids, a house, good job, etc... just like the "good guys" do. They just might go about getting those things differently.
-
IMO, if you look at every capsuleer, no matter what their perspective is, or faction they work for is evil. Abominations to humanity. Almost 100% of the time, everything we they do causes death en mass. That to me is evil.
-
IMO, if you look at every capsuleer, no matter what their perspective is, or faction they work for is evil. Abominations to humanity. Almost 100% of the time, everything we they do causes death en mass. That to me is evil.
There is no good or evil, only differing degrees of villainy.
-
Whether Esna is evil or not heavily depends on your view: He sees himself as Chaotic Good, using his influence as a capsuleer to force change for the better. From my OOC viewpoint, I'd call him (at best) Chaotic Neutral - yes, he is working for good, but he's breaking a lot of eggs to make that omelet. Furthermore, he freely admits that he likes fighting, and would still love it if it was for a "wrong" cause - he just tries to pick his fights carefully.
From the perspective of someone who really hates slavery, though, I could see how Esna could represent Neutral Evil or Chaotic Evil in that he is attempting to extend something truly evil (slavery). Personally, neither I OOC or Esna IC believe this makes him evil, as Esna's interpretation of "slavery" really stretches the definition of the word; if I were to walk up to someone and explain it without the word "slavery" being used, I don't think people would consider it evil - as soon as the concept of slavery comes into play IC though, it evokes a whole different interpretation from people he is talking to.
-
Hm, I can't answer this without feeling sufficiently Mary Sue, Gary Stu or Angsty Sue...something like that.
-
So what do you enjoy playing? Characters you see as essentially good (if imperfect), or as essentially bad (if self-justified)? What tips do you have for the latter, more challenging character types?
In RPGs, I often like playing characters with worldviews or values that in some significant respect differ from my own. I pick things that I feel that I don't understand why people support them, and then try and make a character who is not evil or stupid, but still subscribes to those ideas. Else is an experiment in extreme patriotism and sentiments that I'd call nepotism. Other characters I currently play in pen&paper are developed around e.g. a belief of personal loyalty to someone even when you see he is immoral, and militant religions.
I think it has had a significant impact on me as a person to understand on an emotional/experience level that RPGs can provide how people can arrive on values that to me seem bizarre or wrong, and justify to themselves acts I clearly consider evil, without actually at any point being clearly intellectually dishonest or stupid or, well, evil.
-
In RPGs, I often like playing characters with worldviews or values that in some significant respect differ from my own. I pick things that I feel that I don't understand why people support them, and then try and make a character who is not evil or stupid, but still subscribes to those ideas. Else is an experiment in extreme patriotism and sentiments that I'd call nepotism. Other characters I currently play in pen&paper are developed around e.g. a belief of personal loyalty to someone even when you see he is immoral, and militant religions.
This is actually the reason I created Inara the way she is. To allow myself to try and view things from a vastly differing perspective than my own.
Inara is very strict in following her rules and code of conduct, where I'm a lot more 'meh' and adjust to situations fluidly. There are a few things that Inara (the character) and I have in common, but that's mostly because there are only so many changes to my own personality that I can take on at one time for a character.
From my perspective, if I ever "met" her, I'd say Inara is an evil b****. But, when I'm playing her, I have to remember that from her perspective (and several people that interact with her) she's far from evil. Again, that is due to PoV.
-
My character's ultimate justification is that he knows the world is ending, and wants to amass enough wealth and power to ride out ragnarok in a gold-plated, ruby-encrusted, invincible, wormhole-hopping space casino... staffed by exotic dancers... with a lifetime supply of crash and overdose-clones in the hold. Screw everyone who gets in the way, only his friends and dog get to come along. He's been manipulated once and learned well from the experience. Now he's out to do a little manipulating of his own to get ahead. He'll always be on the winning side, or try to be. That includes allying with the bad guys if they look like they have the upper hand :yar:
It's actually almost weird and prophetic, looking at my old fiction from the beta era and comparing it to events today. People being manipulated by things that live in wormhole space. Strange corporations full of controlled New Eden citizens committing atrocities and building stargates that link to nowhere. I should start writing again.
-
I should start writing again.
GET ON WITH IT ALREADY! More fiction please. :D
Also, Istvaan is now my hero. Casino ship full of exotic dancers? Yes please! Now that's villainy!
-
Istvaan = grimdark Moses?
-
Istvaan = grimdark Moses?
Maybe. Now all I need is a staff and some plague.
-
Istvaan = grimdark Moses?
Maybe. Now all I need is a staff and some plague.
Don't forget epic beard.
-
Istvaan = grimdark Moses?
Maybe. Now all I need is a staff and some plague.
Don't forget epic beard.
Or the food generator, water extractor and broken navigation system.
-
I never play bad guys.
All my characters in RPGs are 'good' and I always make the 'good' moral decisions.
In games like Dragon Age, Fallout etc, my characters are always as righteous as can be.
In our tabletop game group, Evil characters are banned.
When playing WWII shooters, I refuse to play as the Nazis.
So, my EVE characters follow in this trend, for the most part.
-
Interesting, Mammal. Mind expounding on why you do so? :)
-
Interesting, Mammal. Mind expounding on why you do so? :)
My guess: Evil in RL. :twisted:
-
When I was in college, a friend of mine convinced me to join a group that played a superhero RPG. You got points to spend to "buy" superpowers, but also to buy mundane skills.
I noticed that superpowers cost a ton of points, but mundane skills were cheap as dirt. So I didn't have any superpowers, other than maxing my attributes to peak human limit. But I could drive/pilot just about everything, knew every type of martial arts and was a weapon expert in just about every kind of thing that can hurt people.
The one rule the game master had was everyone had to take the restriction "code against killing." I noted this on my character sheet, took the 10 bonus points it offered and used it to buy my characters equipment: a suit of high-tech body armor and a futuristic assault rifle with night vision scope, silencer and muzzle flash suppressor.
A few minutes into my first session with the group and we are all set to assault the fortress of some arch-villain. One of the characters flies over the wall, another phases through the wall, the third turns invisible and slips past the gate guards. Me? I creep into position and shoot the legs out from under the guards.
Horrified, the other three players turned to the GM with a look of panic on their faces. Apparently, the group had always interpreted the "code against killing" as meaning you had to treat non-super-powered villains with kid gloves. The GM looked at me from behind his screen as he considered what to do.
I, realizing the situation I had created, was quick to point out that the guards' wounds were not life threatening. To quote the Terminator, I noted "They'll live."
Needless to say, my character was not a member of that superteam for very long.
As for Eve, I see Saxon as a champion of the Intaki people. When I consider his actions or ILF policy, the decisions I make for him are those that I feel are in the best interest of the Intaki. He has been accused of wanting power and prestige etc., and disparagingly vilified by some, but that is not his intention at all.
Would he call himself a hero? No, that's not his style. But he certainly would not see himself as a villain.
-
Hahaha... Nice one Saxon. :lol:
My character isn't good or evil, he is a human like we all and does whatever is needed for him to survive in such harsh world.
-
I had a stupidly huge grin over my face when I finished reading that story, Saxon. And I'm not entirely sure why.
It does highlight the fact that "good" and "evil" are highly, highly subjective, though. Highly.
-
Interesting, Mammal. Mind expounding on why you do so? :)
I guess I just feel bad when I play bad guys.
As for tabletop, we made a decision that evil characters imbalance the rp and take away from party dynamic.
-
I try to depict John as a "good" person in the eye of the public, but in truth being in power of anything can corrupt even the purest people. I have slipped a few times, destroying competitors through "dirty" business tactics, and have even gone to lengths of dipping into illicit activities to make lives of others harder in the end I justify it for the good of Ishukone and my pilots.. It is EvE after all. I find that in eve there is alot of Grey area, which I tend to exploit at first chance as long as its honorable in the eyes of others (If they find out), it keeps me on the edge I guess.. and even I get kicks out of being a big bad Corporate CEO at times but I know my bounds.
-
There was a time when I thought playing "evil" characters was kinda morally suspect. That was mostly back in high school. These days, I tend to wonder more about those who flat-out won't do it.
Playing an evil character is an opportunity to learn a little more about yourself and your own actual limits-- and a way to learn how you, personally, go about rocking your conscience to sleep. That's a helpful thing to know.
A couple of odd traits of my own conscience:
1. if I can intellectually form a philosophy to justify a course of action, I can use the resulting reasoning to bypass most moral concerns-- unless things get personal. Because I can do this in real life, I know to watch for it.
2. sneaky badassery appeals. If something involves using stealth and cunning (physical, as in burglary, more than social, as in confidence games) to gain a particular end, it's sufficiently up my alley that the "right and wrong" of it kinda goes out the window. Shhh! Don't talk to me about morals; I'm too busy being clever!
3. righteous anger is a whole continuum of moral justifications unto itself. Big surprise, right? If I feel wronged by someone, I can justify all manner of vengeance in my mind. Interesting note: this does not, in my case, extend to "using" third parties; for me, the revenge impulse is always strictly personal. Harming innocents to get to my target is never "okay" for me, even in a fictional context. On the other hand, shooting an arrogant, insulting son-of-a-bitch in the head at point-blank range just for being an arrogant, insulting son-of-a-bitch is much, much too easy. Again, something to watch for.
Now, it's not as though I'm actually going to pull out a silenced pistol and pop a round in the skull of the next person who's an asshole to me, but the fact that I can justify high-handed retaliation without my conscience screaming "NO!" at just that moment is a warning signal; my instincts are not wholly trustworthy in this area. Knowing that this is the case is important: it makes it much easier for me to avoid being a vindictive, self-righteous bastard in real life.
This brings me to the reason I worry a little about people who won't take their dark side out for a walk: I know my "real" borders, and I know how I go about disarming my moral qualms, so I can keep an introspective eye on myself and hopefully catch myself when I start walking down one of those paths.
So the worry is, how do those who can't bring themselves to face their own darker impulses know what to look for?
GWB, once, when confronted about the U.S. using methods of interrogation we've historically prosecuted people as war criminals for using (e.g., waterboarding), got a kind of stunned look on his face and said, "The United States doesn't torture people." I seem to recall he said it two or three times in a row: "The United States doesn't torture people."
Torture = a bad thing. The U.S. gov't under Bush = good people. Good people don't do bad things. Ergo, the U.S. doesn't torture people. We don't, even if we're doing things that we have ourselves historically treated as torture. We're good, so it's impossible for us to be doing wrong. That's the logic here. Unsettling, no?
Compare this to the woman we'll call Lilly I used to game with who absolutely refused to play or run anything even a little on the dark side. Lilly sat in on one of my darker games, which centered on the characters' internal conflicts between duty, loyalty, and belief in serving the greater good and the demands of serving on a black ops team beneath a dangerous and possibly corrupt superior. In this particular session, a few of the PC's came in contact with an otherwise minor criminal who posed a genuine threat to their boss.
They were ordered to take said NPC out and execute her. They complied.
Lilly was absolutely appalled-- not at the morality of the characters, but at the players for playing characters who would do such a thing (however bad they might feel about it) and at me for running a game involving such characters and such decisions. She just couldn't see how this was in any way even comprehensible.
Lilly and her husband are themselves very much the sort to believe the absolute worst possible of a housemate who might or might not owe them a couple hundred bucks. They won't hear a single word in her defense. Not one. They're right. She's wrong. That's all there is to it. And because they can't conceive of themselves doing anything wrong, they won't entertain the possibility that they just might have self-justified their way into doing someone an injustice.
So, yes, I do worry a little.
-
So I vacillate on this question myself. IRL, I'm a highly conscientious person who, while confronted with the internal temptation to act in a ruthlessly Machiavellian manner, stuffs that down and tries to live up to the Golden Rule / categorical imperative / etc. (I recognize those two are not identical. Let's not get caught up on tangents.)
In other words, I try to follow the advice of Francis of Assisi: "Preach the Gospel at all times. If necessary, use words."
But, as I mentioned, I recognize that I'm an imperfect person. RP provides me with a similar opportunity to explore my own limits. I can ask myself, "what would I do if I removed the RL consequences?" While I do not identify fully with my characters, I find more than a little of myself in all of them.
This has led me, on many occasions, to consider dumping every RP character I have and starting fresh with as "good" of a character as I can play. So far, I haven't done that, but it's an idea I keep in my back pocket for the next time EVE grows stale for me.
-
I don't have a dark side. I'm morally sound. ;)
-
It's difficult for me to posit a moral system for my characters because my personal morality is entirely religion-based, and I rather dislike the idea of trying to import some sort of Christian ethic into Eve. It's the sort of thing that seems to invite both mockery and an electrifying end, and both well-deserved. Therefore, my character's morality is something I largely muddle through, based upon the fact that I can assign predetermined, unreasoned beliefs to my character. Having him defend them is a different matter.
By "religion-based", I should note, I merely mean that I don't have some internal compass that directs me to any great extent, if it does so to any extent at all. Rather, my actions flow out of an intellectual assent that the dictates of a particular set of beliefs are likely to lead to a happy and productive period of existence, in this life and hopefully the next. That I cannot always see how this makes me happy is a matter of faith.
If one's dark side is revealed by the characters one plays, I have a dark side indeed. Vikarion, for all of his flaws, is not an indulgence of my dark side, but a character seeking to do good, and finding unintended consequences as the result of his arrogant idealism. It's a conservative - in the sense of the folly of disregarding tradition in favor of idealism - tale, with a semi-redemptive return to grace...
...In any case, I once played a D&D game with a friend of mine as the DM/GM where my character encountered an evil army of Bane being attacked by a less-advanced but undoubtedly in the right rebel band. Over the course of the encounter, my character:
1. Attacked the rebel band, and was captured by them.
2. Convinced the rebel wizardess in charge of the rebels that he was not a bad guy and would double-cross the evil army on whose behest he attacked.
3. Went back to the evil army, double-crossed the Baneite in charge and threw him into the dungeon.
4. Double-crossed the rebel wizardess by informing the evil army that she was to attack.
5. Wiped out the rebels, chased down the rescuing party, and captured them.
6. Informed the now-captured wizardess that she could either burn the aforementioned Baneite commander of the evil army alive and follow me, or I'd set all of her men alight.
While I tend to find P&P games boring these days (warning - I say this as a person who believes the height of non-computer-related entertainment is listening to audiobooks on economics), I did find the flexibility of role-playing systems interesting and useful. Nonetheless, I don't believe that role-playing games are useful barometers of my dark side, or light side, for that matter. I've played heroic characters and evil characters and even some passably neutral characters, and none of them have excited my better angels or inner demons to any particular extent.
The greatest and most pervasive human flaw is pride, and I doubt we possess the inner perspective or the humility to accurately describe our own faults, much less self-analyze those self-shadow-reflections which we create for fun. If humans were self-correcting in thought or action, we wouldn't need the million moral guidelines that have been created for us or by us through the centuries. And I am extraordinarily skeptical of the exceptionally ridiculous assumption that we have somehow in the last half-century apprehended a moral clarity that has eluded similar humans for many thousands or years. We may be wise apes, but we are foolish men.
-
Vikarion, I really appreciated your post. However, I would just note that looking at our own faults (through whatever lens, RP or religion or otherwise) need not involve pride. If someone recognizes that their own view will not capture all their flaws but at least tries to recognize the ones they can see, that's a somewhat larger moral self-awareness than much of the world practices.
-
My responses to this thread have been fairly flippant and light-hearted. I guess I should spell out my take on morality.
First and foremost, I'm a skeptic. In this capacity, I subject knowledge to extreme doubt. In my opinion, the greatest evils of our time have been perpretrated by individuals and groups who have been certain, certain about the rightness of their actions. Certainty, for me, is a highly difficult and dangerous epistemological standpoint, and is the jumping-off point for most immoral action.
So, if I doubt all things, how can I have a morality? Firstly, I'm a pluralist - so I consider the possibility that there may be a number of correct answers. Also, I'm a coherentist, so rather than choose a moral absolute and base my standpoint on that, I collect different ideas, ones that cohere with the rest of my worldview. This is how I construct my knowledge.
So those are the basis of how I begin to approach morality.
Then I look at specifics. I would say the moral system which coheres with my worldview is Situation Ethics, which would suggest in any situation, the correct action would be to do the 'most loving' thing. This is consequentially measured. There is obviously more detail than this, but that's a summary.
I'm also a fan of John Rawls' Justice Theory, which I will often bring up in discussion.
This being said, Mammal shares my knowledge of Philosophy and will often bring it up. He selects a moral code based on a similar standpoint that I have and surprise, he generally comes to the same conclusions I would. He would see himself as 'good' despite his understanding of the limitations of that term.
-
Mammal and I aren't so far apart in real life; Rawls' veil is practically a required fashion accessory ;)
Simon's pretty much me if I were a reincarnating space Zuni given unimaginable wealth and a broad field to exercise agency in. The big differences are that he's less polite and much less given to introspection than I am, but considering the escapist nature of gaming, that's not surprising.
My one experience with playing a truly, not just psycho for cheap thrills, evil character was pretty unsettling and left my gaming group uncomfortable. He was just a little too easy to get into character with, and a little too fun. It's nice to take your demons for a stroll every now and again, but if you're walking with them every day, well, you need to be mindful of the company you keep, you know? I'm also not sure I agree with the idea that playing good characters is less challenging than playing evil ones. It shouldn't be, if you're making even a cursory effort to engage him with the world around him. If you want your character to be a saint, don't use paradise as a setting and you'll find plenty of challenges.
-
^^
Totally agree. Role playing a character who is trying to be moral in an immoral world can be very challenging and fun.
As for polite and impolite characters I have Valdezi who is the direct, witty, name calling side of me. He smack talks pirates in local and makes jokes about their mothers (for the most part). That allows me to play Mammal as the diplomat.
Sometimes I slip, though...
-
Regarding playing immoral / evil characters... I guess there's a moral ways and an immoral ways to do it.
You can play someone who appears evil with the intent to understand what makes him so, experiment with how he interacts with the world, what the consequences (if any) are, how they might affect him, etc, and enjoy the process.
And you can play someone who appears evil because you want to screw over other players and be a general pain to everyone, and use "but my character is evil" an excuse for you to do so and a cover in case someone starts to suspect you actually are an asshole who enjoys being mean.
And something in between.
-
Vlad's position as a moral character is simple.
Anything that benefits him is "good". Anything else is "bad".
He's quite amoral.
-
The greatest and most pervasive human flaw is pride, and I doubt we possess the inner perspective or the humility to accurately describe our own faults, much less self-analyze those self-shadow-reflections which we create for fun.
Oh, I don't agree at all.
Pride is indeed a widespread fault, and one I possess in abundance. Arrogance comes easily to me. This has been obvious since childhood: I don't need a character to tell me that.
Much of my personality is built on reaction against my own arrogance.
The shadow-reflections we play in games, now, those make subtler points. We can conceive of nothing that is not, in some way, of ourselves. I can talk myself out of a great deal, if I let myself-- I once talked myself out of love (for a month. Thankfully, she waited).
Playing characters in which this tendency runs unchecked allows me to explore the nature and borders of this fault. Probably, there are things that I miss, but what I learn about my own tendencies is frequently of use.
Aria's pride in her abilities is very much mine. The casual cruelty, born of arrogance, with which she sometimes employs them? That, too, is mine, though I had never thought of myself as a person with the capacity to be cruel.
Is it a perfect picture? Of course not. Is it useful? Oh, yes.
If humans were self-correcting in thought or action, we wouldn't need the million moral guidelines that have been created for us or by us through the centuries.
For us, through evolutionary programming; our instinctive morality (and tendency to occasionally breach it) is pretty closely comparable to that of the chimpanzee (the only other species I know of that commits lust murders. "If I can't have you, no one can! EEEE EEEE EEEE!" Whack).
By us, through social programming. Our communities work out systems of rules they think work well and teach those to their children.
Mind you, I plainly do not share your faith, and I also believe that "good" atheists are a dime a dozen (though I'm not an atheist, either). Not morally perfect, but morally the equal of the faithful.
And I am extraordinarily skeptical of the exceptionally ridiculous assumption that we have somehow in the last half-century apprehended a moral clarity that has eluded similar humans for many thousands or years. We may be wise apes, but we are foolish men.
Circumstances influence what is right and what is wrong. That's another belief Aria and I share.
The ancients muddled through as best they could in an ancient time-- and in the process saddled us with a number of social devices that may have been necessary once but are certainly a pain in the rear today (see, e.g., the value of female virginity. To this very day, a sexually experienced man is admired; a woman, derided).
We muddle through as best we can, now, and are probably saddling our descendants with some odious rules in the process. As an example, most people these days are what my futurist housemate calls "deathists"-- people who believe that death is an inherent part of life and that there's something immoral about seeking immortality. The first "uploaded" human, if that ever happens, will have some steep hills to climb.
The rules we write for ourselves as we muddle through are based, as they must be, on our own observations and beliefs about what helps or harms us as a society. And so, we analyze, correctly or not, and hope that we do not misunderstand our situation too badly.
-------
Aria, as a character, is a sort of testing ground for approaches and ideas. Whether she's really "evil" depends on your point of view (as always), but she freely expresses traits that I try to suppress in myself. She's an unapologetic elitist, cheerfully arrogant, casually cruel, and has no qualms at all about being sneaky or underhanded. Her endless front is one of intellectual superiority, although underneath she's something of a coward.
At the same time, she's strongly religious and deeply introspective; she's aware of these faults, and uses this self-awareness to drive her ambition of achieving real wisdom-- which, she'd be the first to admit, she's a long way from reaching.
The thing that pushes her the most towards the "dark" side is the obvious: her conviction that she's no longer human. Even if she's right, in Aria's case this is at least partly an excuse. She conveniently forgets that, even as a human, she was more than a wee bit messed up, and many of the most violent episodes of her life, such as the flash of crimson rage in which she killed her grandfather, have come from emotional places that are far from inhuman.
-
Oh, understand, please, that I'm not saying that there is nothing at all to be gained from examining reflections of ourselves. Certainly, there is something to be said for that. What I meant to express, and in doing so, perhaps went too far, is that we are not wise enough to paint a clear picture of ourselves through this activity.
If I may be blunt, I think the experience of interacting with other human beings is a much more reliable indicator of our faults then any other occupation from which we might derive measurement of such. Whatever moral code one subscribes to, it is difficult to have an objective self-examination, largely because one of our general faults is an inability to objectively perceive ourselves (perhaps not always a fault, at that). It is no accident that those who would harm others usually perceive themselves and separate and above them, and that those who compose vicious and destructive ideologies tend to have contempt for those upon whom they visit their visions of ideal societies. The pride which causes us to take offense at the criticism of another is a prologue to the pride that allows us to see ourselves as set apart and above from the common sea of humanity, and as such qualified to decide their fates.
As to instinctual morality, I find this notion intriguing largely because I seem to have little of it. My morals are, I must confess, completely inculcated from instruction - my innate urge is a strictly amoral willingness to accomplish whatever I desire regardless as to the effects on others (unless they might retaliate, of course). Until recently, I assumed that this was the case for everyone, but the rather vociferous protestations of those to whom I explained this perspective create some doubt. Still, the ease with which men and women on the whole slaughter others without any other evidence of abnormality leads one to expect that, if we are descended from apes, we give the family a bad name. Social programming, as insidious as the name sounds, is largely Bob telling his kid not to pound Big Bert's kid so that Big Bert doesn't decide to remove both Bob and progeny from the gene pool. Fear, often in various forms of mutually assured destruction, is the primary civilizing force of man, and the fear of retaliation, removed from man, invariably produces by its lack monsters from within him.
As such, I find the notion of a "good" anyone rather suspect. To me, a "good" atheist is merely a person smart enough to understand that the police usually get their man, but too dumb, indifferent, or lazy to find loopholes in the law. This is not necessarily a slur at all - many an industrious and well-meaning person has managed to do more damage to other humans in a few weeks than the average person manages in a lifetime. Fear diligent evil.
-
Oh, understand, please, that I'm not saying that there is nothing at all to be gained from examining reflections of ourselves.
Thank you for the clarification.
Certainly, there is something to be said for that. What I meant to express, and in doing so, perhaps went too far, is that we are not wise enough to paint a clear picture of ourselves through this activity.
Certainly not every little corner. But broad strokes, or even a few complex nuances, that wouldn't otherwise surface? Certainly.
If I may be blunt, I think the experience of interacting with other human beings is a much more reliable indicator of our faults then any other occupation from which we might derive measurement of such.
Ah, but the experience of interacting with other human beings has lasting ramifications. That, and you don't learn your own outer boundaries that way-- the parts it becomes painful even to contemplate.
Mind you, yes, some of us don't seem to have those. But that's an important insight in and of itself, yes? If you can't trust your instincts at all, reasoning and learned codes are what you have to go on.
The pride which causes us to take offense at the criticism of another is a prologue to the pride that allows us to see ourselves as set apart and above from the common sea of humanity, and as such qualified to decide their fates.
But it is possible-- necessary, in some areas, such as the arts-- to learn to accept and even invite criticism. Self-analysis and self-critique are aspects of gaining understanding.
You say we should not lightly cast aside the wisdom of the past. I agree, but I also believe that our ancestors were no wiser than ourselves, and they clearly understood a great deal about themselves.
Just not everything.
Likewise, we can learn a great deal about our own nature. Just not everything.
As to instinctual morality, I find this notion intriguing largely because I seem to have little of it.
Ah. Let me explain a little of my own experience of this, and you can consider whether this is something you recognize.
These days, it's rare that I have "nightmares." I'm at home with my own imagination; very little in my dreams scares me. The exception is when a dream scenario has me doing harm to my friends or family. When that happens (once or twice a year), I wake up gasping and covered in sweat, literally sick at the very concept of such an action.
I can imagine stabbing my wife to death with a rusty ice pick. Doing so induces a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach-- not like nausea; it's more like falling. Similarly, I have a hard time turning away from people in genuine need; doing so is a wrench, twisting against my own instincts. Physically, it feels a bit like pulling a magnet off a refrigerator (if the magnet's about two inches above my belly button), and I usually feel faintly unwell for a few minutes after.
As such, I find the notion of a "good" anyone rather suspect.
Most people do seem to be, to one degree or another. I'm more worry about those who, by nature, training, or cleverly intellectualizing around their instinctive morals, circumvent that compass.
Fear diligent evil.
Actually, the kind of evil I fear most is decentralized evil. Diligent evil is apt to get itself caught; decentralized evil is the kind of vicious bastardy that cannot be traced back to any one person, and it's much, much harder to stop.
Unethical corporate decisions nobody takes responsibility for but everybody goes along with because they all want to be "team players." That's decentralized evil, and it's currently rampant. I somewhat doubt Nike's board of directors gets together and discusses how best to ensure that their shoes are constructed in sweatshops. Probably, they just discuss how to keep prices low....
-
\
The thing that pushes her the most towards the "dark" side is the obvious: her conviction that she's no longer human. Even if she's right, in Aria's case this is at least partly an excuse. She conveniently forgets that, even as a human, she was more than a wee bit messed up, and many of the most violent episodes of her life, such as the flash of crimson rage in which she killed her grandfather, have come from emotional places that are far from inhuman.
This is something Nikita does as well, she claims she's not human anymore, she stopped being human long ago, or even she completely forfeited the right to be human, she sees herself as a monster, a weapon, a Goddess of Death. Because if she admitted to being human, then the actions would be her fault, instead of just being her nature, something she think's she's accepted this, but on some unconscious level, really hasn't, and of course all the violent, sadistic, sociopathic tendencies she had before becoming a capsuleer have convienently faded into the background of her mind.
Can she be redeemed from this? It would take a lot of time, energy, and considerable risk to life and limb. She's taken on the attitude that she's a tool, a tool of celestial destruction to be wielded by the cartel at will. She'll serve her purpose to them in the best of her ability, and when they're done with her, if there is any justice in the universe, she'll end up facing a slow painful death. If there's no rightness in the world, then she'll just keep going, butchering and slaughtering her way across space, because "thats how she is, thats how things are, and thats how they'll be till someone figures how to put her down for good." Thats really where she sees herself, as something, almost less then human.
Its an interesting perspective I think.
-
Nikita:
Yeah, that's a pattern that works exceedingly well-- and seems to fit in particularly neatly with the capsuleer's place in the scheme of things.
Something I should amend:
I indicated, earlier, a belief that most people are, to one degree or another, "good." That's not quite accurate; it would be closer to my view to say that people are largely people-- that is, they have brains capable of getting them into all sorts of trouble, but usually have enough moral compass to try not to do anything actively malign.
Usually.
-
I'm not sure to what extent comments about 'human nature' are useful.
Vikarion's comments seem to me to be suggesting the idea of Psychological Egoism - that people are intrinsically selfish and always act in their own self-interest.
Before I go on, a proviso. I am not specifically critiquing Vikarion here. This is more general.
Anyway, what believers in this idea tend to claim is that even seemingly altruistic actions are motivated, at their core, by self-interest. That the giver gets something out of the act of giving that outweighs the loss of whatever they gave.
This is a fairly unfalsifiable claim, for starters, but it is also overly simplistic, and suggests that people do not have complex motivations.
That being said, I don't know that one can make a good argument that starts with 'People/Human nature is like this...." There's not enough good evidence to back these statements up, and always counter-arguments. If you're going to argue about Morality, these kinds of statements don't really contribute much.
-
There is an ongoing and perhaps unresolvable debate among early childhood development specialists as to whether empathy is learned or innate. Unsurprisingly, those who believe human nature is intrinsically selfish and to act otherwise is either the outcome of enlightened self-interest or social pressure find evidence for the former; those who argue otherwise find evidence for the latter.
Given how thoroughly we socialize children from infancy, I doubt it's possible to settle the question.
-
There have been cases of feral children, where young kids were found completely deprived of human contact. Some were raised by dogs, some just managed to survive completely wild. As far as I know, none of those kids turned out to be serial killers.
-
There have been cases of feral children, where young kids were found completely deprived of human contact. Some were raised by dogs, some just managed to survive completely wild. As far as I know, none of those kids turned out to be serial killers.
I wouldn't be surprised: empathy is a survival tool. If you don't kill everything/everyone around you, you are less likely to be eradicated as a threat by others. Personally, I think that such things are a combination of both genetics and learning - everyone possesses the potential to be a killer, but it's easier for some than others.
-
Ah. Let me explain a little of my own experience of this, and you can consider whether this is something you recognize.
These days, it's rare that I have "nightmares." I'm at home with my own imagination; very little in my dreams scares me. The exception is when a dream scenario has me doing harm to my friends or family. When that happens (once or twice a year), I wake up gasping and covered in sweat, literally sick at the very concept of such an action.
I can imagine stabbing my wife to death with a rusty ice pick. Doing so induces a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach-- not like nausea; it's more like falling. Similarly, I have a hard time turning away from people in genuine need; doing so is a wrench, twisting against my own instincts. Physically, it feels a bit like pulling a magnet off a refrigerator (if the magnet's about two inches above my belly button), and I usually feel faintly unwell for a few minutes after.
This is, as I said, interesting, because I have the same emotional response to the idea of causing harm to a loved one as I do to the subject of dryer lint - virtually none whatsoever. Now, don't misunderstand, I certainly don't want to do such things (I very much enjoy having certain people around), but besides my learned moral code, there isn't anything except reason and fear of punishment that prevents me from happily engaging in violence against those who irritate me.
This isn't to say that I can't feel empathy. I'm not a sociopath, and I don't consider myself superior to others (well...let's be honest - I try not to). It's just that I don't feel any innate compunction to avoid harming others - my unwillingness to do so is based entirely upon my beliefs and logic. I also don't think I'm that different from everyone else, so I suspect that most people's visceral reaction to such things is also taught, not innate.
Or it could be that it is innate, and I merely trained it out of myself in my continual efforts to divorce my thinking processes from my emotions.
Actually, the kind of evil I fear most is decentralized evil. Diligent evil is apt to get itself caught; decentralized evil is the kind of vicious bastardy that cannot be traced back to any one person, and it's much, much harder to stop.
Unethical corporate decisions nobody takes responsibility for but everybody goes along with because they all want to be "team players." That's decentralized evil, and it's currently rampant. I somewhat doubt Nike's board of directors gets together and discusses how best to ensure that their shoes are constructed in sweatshops. Probably, they just discuss how to keep prices low....
I'd have to disagree. In part, what I mean by "diligent" evil might also be termed "competent" evil, the sort of evil that, even if it fails, manages to do irreversible and widespread harm. Decentralized evil is usually incidental - Nike isn't setting out to harm people, and, considering whether there is other work available for those workers, may not be harming them (according to them) as outside observers believe. Nazism, on the other hand, was very centralized, and very efficient at disposing of people.
This is why I tend to view your statement in regards to fearing governments less than corporations as the equivalent of someone saying that they worry more about the cold virus than they do about malaria. This is, of course, a personal evaluation, but companies, as harmful as they can be, have an incentive not to kill their customer base. Governments have much less of one, and no (internal to their system of operation) incentive not to kill everyone not under their purview. In the 20th century, governments managed to kill more people for various ideological reasons than any company or religion has in the history of humanity. Can the latter do harm? Certainly. But when a serial killer is sleeping in the guest room, the thief stealing your chickens is...less of a priority.
Unless you really, really like chickens, I suppose.
To bring this back to the original topic, I think that the most destructive kind of evil is the organized, efficient, ideologically motivated kind. The EOM, for example, or the Sansha, or the Blood Raiders. The other factions...they all rely on others outside of their factions for survival. But those three I named are internally motivated to be threats to the existence of any outside their faction. They set themselves up as superior humans who may judge the fate of others, and, unsurprisingly, find them inferior and unworthy of equal treatment with concordant results.
I am sorry that this post isn't very thoughtful. I'm rather tired at the moment.
-
I suspect that most people's visceral reaction to such things is also taught, not innate.
And yet, based on your deep personal faith, it seems you've been taught quite well-- but you personally have no visceral reaction.
Teaching, I'd surmise, can shape moral reactions, but can't forge them out of whole cloth where they do not already exist. There seemingly needs to be a foundation to build from.
There's been some interesting research on this, recently; I may see if I can find a link to it, later, if I have some time.
Or it could be that it is innate, and I merely trained it out of myself in my continual efforts to divorce my thinking processes from my emotions.
Possible. Morality is intuitive, not rational (which is one reason I despise Western moral philosophy-- it's spent over a century trying to square the circle).
... when a serial killer is sleeping in the guest room, the thief stealing your chickens is...less of a priority.
The reason you frame this analogy this way seems to be because you see the two as separate. I would frame it thus:
You fear the king and his men.
I, at least under this particular king, am more worried about the shadows whispering slow poison into the king's ear-- and into ours. Our society's fear of the Orwellian tyranny is a misdirection: it's Aldous Huxley whose "Brave New World" is rising. We've manned the ramparts along the wrong border.
I was going to include a section on playing "the shadow behind the throne," here, but that's really a position more than a "school" of villainy (however much of a classic trope the "evil vizier" is). If you've got the ability to generally give solid advice, I recommend aiming for such an advisory position highly, especially if your time online is limited.
You can get so much done from such a position, either benevolent or malign.
-
To bring this back to the original topic, I think that the most destructive kind of evil is the organized, efficient, ideologically motivated kind. The EOM, for example, or the Sansha, or the Blood Raiders. The other factions...they all rely on others outside of their factions for survival. But those three I named are internally motivated to be threats to the existence of any outside their faction. They set themselves up as superior humans who may judge the fate of others, and, unsurprisingly, find them inferior and unworthy of equal treatment with concordant results.
I am sorry that this post isn't very thoughtful. I'm rather tired at the moment.
You seem to have left the Amarrians out of that bloc, when imo, they also fit into it. Its also interesting that all these groups who are so convinced they're right spun out of organized religion. It makes sense though, of all the people who are convinced they are right, none are more convinced that they're more right then institutional religions.
on an unrelated note: Aria, I could probably listen to you debate for hours. You're so damn interesting to listen to.
-
You can get so much done from such a position, either benevolent or malign.
And there's something to be said about having nice juicy meatshields.
-
Nikita:
Aw. ... ... Well, thank you. Not sure what else to say to that.
Vieve:
And there's something to be said about having nice juicy meatshields.
Indeed! Among them the REAL kings with REAL thrones who hold the REAL power and therefore take the REAL blame when everything goes straight to hell-- even if it's really your fault.
... so long as you manage to be subtle about it, anyway.
"But it was the King's decision to make!"
True: he had every right to make whatever decision he saw fit. I just made sure that he saw fit to do as I suggested.
-
Honestly, I could really (and really want to, to be quite honest) get into two separate discussions about morality and capitalism and so forth. However, I think that I'd best refrain, partially because that's not what this thread is about, and also because its not what this board is for, and I definitely feel the mods fingers drifting towards their "edit post" buttons.
-
So maybe instead let's focus on ideas for playing interesting, multi-dimensional characters that drift toward "good" or "evil" in some sense. What those two things mean will obviously vary from player to player, of course, but that doesn't mean we can't find useful methods overall.
You're welcome to start another thread in the appropriate board on morality or capitalism or whatever else (within the site guidelines), though. :)
-
If nothing else, besides giving Vikarion an additional philosophical means to look at the world, Aria has inspired Vikarion to be a bit (a little bit) more thoughtful in his actions and IGS writings, although he is still a bit of a firebrand and (towards Gallente and Amarr, typically), well, a troll.
Vikarion shares one specific trait with me that comes out quite a bit in his actions - he loves to infuriate idealists and do-gooders. I'm the sort of person who finds it hard to resist eating meat in front of a member of PETA, and Vikarion is worse, because after he does that, he'll shoot you. And then taunt you.
Childish? Yes. Entertaining? Yes. Likely to make the target bear a permanent grudge? Yes. I think grudges can make great RP. Or they can simply make your opponent froth at the mouth like someone scrubbing with an entire tube of wintergreen toothpaste, and that's even better.
But between this and his temper, Aria has, (as a "shadow councilor", I suppose) managed to inject a bit of thoughtfulness into his knee-jerk "this good, that bad" pattern of thought (something he does not share with me, I will note emphatically). As such, he's going to continue (barring unforeseen circumstances) start posting more on IGS, but hopefully with a bit more reason than the typical "nuh-uh", at least over time.
Not completely, though. Flaming people IC is too fun to give up altogether.