Post/Author/DateTime	Post
preacher of nothing 08-06-04, 05:04 PM	well, this thread is prolly gonna start some debates, although i'm sure it wouldn't be the first of this nature. First of all, let me say that i mean to insult no one, and this is only general discussion, so all those participating will be considered unaffected and completely immune to what we say. If i were to have a thread that said orcs are stupid, i wouldn't expect those i spoke to to feel offended...but anyway. Here's what i wrote in an e-mail to my DnD Group, after receiving an e-mail from a guy that said paladins are the best and quoted some stuff form the quintessential paladin handbook: "Sorry if this is going to bother the entire gorup, but i just felt the need to express my opinion. You see...to me...maybe it's the american movies...but to me it's always felt like the goody guys are ok....but are can't be compared to bad guys when it comes to intellect. Now...i'm sure that i might be wrong, and i assure you i don't always mean the chaotic evil sort of persons that go around killing everything in sight...what i do mean though, is that bad guys: 1. Should win more often 2. Are way more intelligent than the good guys to even begin with. When i say this, i don't just mean DnD, but mostly everything. I don't know how many of you have had the privilege of seeing the movie "Unbreakable" with Bruce Willis and Samuel L. Jackson, but if you have, you'll understand from Samuel L. Jackson's acting and character what i mean. I'm sure most of you won't approove with this, but when i think of good guys, i think of some morons running around, trying to solve stuff by using their muscles or just being lucky. The only good character that has ever struck me as being less than a chimpansene was Gandalf... If i am mistaking, please correct me but as i said before, i think that when you say good guy you can very well just start laughing..." Well, that was the e-mail i sent them, and no reply...probably don't want to upset me by telling me i'm wrong...so i turn to the good men and women of the wizards boards. Please correct me. ps: There has appeared however for a short while the dark sort of hero. Something that is not good and not evil. The best possible example i could think of is maybe Riddick....or Van Helsing....but i'm not just speaking movies here, and i'm not just speaking stereotypes here. I'm sure in time good guys will have somehow reached a level of intelligence higher than that of a coconut, but still, i will never be able to get the whole "Crush evil, hit hit hit" sort of attitude out of my system. My 2 cents.
meabolex 08-06-04, 05:28 PM	Usually, a bad guy has a twisted mind. This mind thirsts for power and control in order to shape the world as it would see it. Thus, the bad guys typically plot for days, months, years, centuries about how to achieve their goals. The good guys typically don't plot as much -- or rather, they plot in response to the bad guys. This kind of reactive thinking gives bad guys an advantage in most cases. The problem is that it's usually easy to tell who a good guy is, work around his strengths, and exploit his weaknesses. It's quite difficult to locate evil until it strikes. The primary advantage that good guys have going for them is in the interpersonal relationships they form with others. People want to help out a good guy -- people will often take risks to fight for the good guy's cause -- often with little or nothing in return. But sometimes the relationships with others can be a weakness. The bad guy usually has to force his influence on others. He can do this using money, political influence, and manipulation and extortion of varying forms. Bad guys typically work best with other bad guys -- but that relationship usually lacks the trust and cooperation that good guys have. The stronger of the good guys, however, actively seek out evil and face it before it strikes. This type of proactive thinking is often hard to execute and difficult to maintain. But, the difficulties associated with proactive thinking good guys (like Gandalf, Batman, Superman, Spiderman) are simply a counter to the proactive thinking of bad guys. Good guys must actively pursue evil.
archcomponent 08-06-04, 05:35 PM	"That is why evil will always win... because good is dumb." -Lord Helmet
mycroft65536 08-06-04, 10:34 PM	Evil is self destructive, good is willling to sacrifice more. Example: in Unbreakable Sam Jackson's goal was to create a super hero (not a smart goal for a bad guy)
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-06-04, 11:18 PM	Evil has more common sense, but writers like to see good win.
Bloodtide_the_Red 08-06-04, 11:50 PM	It's american culture. People want to see the good guys win and the bad guys lose...and even more then that they want to transfer that belief into the real world and their lives. People realy want to think that the bad guys always lose and that good always wins. And, of course, people think of themselfs as good..and then they always win. Now movie/story/drama-wise. The bad guys have to be smart to come up with a 'perfect' evil plan....and it has to look like it can be done. The good guys on the other hand have to Cabbagehead a lot...so that the plot can go off and their can be drama. It's also important that the good guys be.....well, as dumb as all the 'common folk' that are gonna go watch the movie. People don't want to see super smart folks easly going through life. Take just about any move. Amazing how at the start the bad guys have everything and do everything right...they are perfect. However, by the end of the movie...the are total idiots. Star Trek has this down to a science. A typical show starts with the good guys doing something dumb..and having all their technology fail. This lets the super smart bad guys get away with just about anything....but by the end of the show, the good guys wise-up and all thier technology works again. The D&D movie is yet another example. The evil wizard has a nice plan to rule the world. The good guys are just a bunch of dumb folks lumped together...and they bumble through most of the movie. But, by the end of the movie...the bad guys have dumbed down enough to get beaten. Anyone think that that evil(10th+levelish) fighter guy should have cut that low level(3rd) theif to peices in the big fight(sword+a billion or whatever or not). Along the same line...way does the wizard not kill the princess? Sure he summons a demon-thingy.....that takes forever to even wound or hurt her. One fireball and she would have been ashes And along that line...notice how the good mage lady never casts any spells....as that would make her 'too powerful/smart' and the good guys would win too easly. And when she gets her big moment, to save the theif guy......she does not even use a spell....but her Duex ex Machina 'portal powder'(Sure was good that it could knock someone down and hold them, eh? ). BT
Koga:The ninja trick 08-07-04, 12:10 AM	Evil IS smarter. But evil is also it's own worse enemy. It's obsessive, abusive, unforgiving, stubborn, and neglectful. That's why good wins.
was_fired 08-07-04, 12:31 AM	Yes, because placing the good guys in an easily escapable death trap is oh so smart. As is telling them your plans right before your final battle or when they are in the said death trap. Puzzels are also a wonderful idea as are riddles. After all no one can answer a riddle, but everyone can randomly figure out the answer to the question, "Please state password: ". Evil has about as much common sense as the guys who keep sending tanks out in Godzilla movies. If something doesn't work try, try again after all. I can just imagine what goes through every evil guys mind in D&D: "Well I recall getting a hell of a lot stronger after killing hoards of equal strength foes, but clearly this won't be true for heroes. So I will send wave after wave of increasing powerful monsters at them until they lose, but I sure hope they don't loot these guys or get better at fighting like I did when the last evil idiot tried the same thing to me." Also in the case of Ridik what kind of retarded evil emperor declares that anyone that can kill him gets his throne? You want to make sure people DON'T try to kill you!
Super Guy 08-07-04, 12:36 AM	Things are too put into movies. Why are the good guys always bumbling fools? Because, the common man rising to the top and saving the world is something feel-good that a lot of people would like to see. And we see it all the time, so it is learned in our heads that good guys are always dumb. But look at real life. If evil always won, we would be lead by an evil world. GOOD people were the ones who found out how to trace EVIL people. Sure, this is very black and white, but it's basically the truth. It's very hard for a big-time crook to hide from the law. And, even if a big-time evil guy hides from the law, what does that mean? Exactly, it means there's one guy against a million. This is why evil loses. (But, IMHO, neutral is definitely the best. They win every time :) )
BlaineTog 08-07-04, 12:39 AM	Well, it depends on the movie/book/genre. Virtually all 007 bad guys, for example, are complete morons. Who in their right mind would: Catch Bond Then tie him down Then set up a big 'ol laser gun and start using it several feet away, moving it slowly towards the intepid hero And finally (here's the second-biggest screw-up) leave the room before the deed has been done and spend the rest of the movie just assuming that Bond is dead. Vaal's got it right, though: people don't want to see the bad guy win and the good guy die. Its mildly depressing; if he, the hero, can't triumph, how can we, lowly movie-goers, expect to? Often, "evil" is interpretted as a type of mental disorder. Mad scientists (or, in the case of fantasy, insane wizards) are virtually always highly intelligent, but they have this one problem (which is usually overconfidence or somesuch). They *are* very smart, but thats not enough to overcome the problems assosiated with being evil. Likewise, all good Heros have their one Fatal Flaw, their hamartia, their kryptonite. What fun would it be if Superman was utterly invincible? As they say, "we like people for their merits, but love them for their flaws." Villans are defeated because they cannot overcome the inherent flaws in being evil, but Heros prevail because being good helps them to overcome their inherent flaws. By all accounts, evil should win a lot more than they do (in literature, at leaste). It does, afterall, count many more intelligent persons in its thrall that good. The overarching idea is that there are more important, more powerful things than intelligence alone. Human reason ultimatelly comes to nothing without that extra something that being good provides. Or, at least, thats the theory. I can't say for sure that its correct.
BlaineTog 08-07-04, 12:47 AM	Originally posted by was_fired "Well I recall getting a hell of a lot stronger after killing hoards of equal strength foes, but clearly this won't be true for heroes. So I will send wave after wave of increasing powerful monsters at them until they lose, but I sure hope they don't loot these guys or get better at fighting like I did when the last evil idiot tried the same thing to me."In there defense, this actually makes a certain degree of sense. Its called "resourse allocation." You don't send you level 60 cohort out to kill the level 5 good guys because the cohort probably needs to be fighting the level 58 good guys. Also in the case of Ridik what kind of retarded evil emperor declares that anyone that can kill him gets his throne?The kind that live in the year 3000, are made of water, and are drawn by Matt Groening. ;)
a18ffe 08-07-04, 01:38 AM	Is it really people from 'american culture' that likes good guys to win? I don't think so. I do think it makes a more interesting story. There is an anime called, 'Winds of Nausica' (I think...). I recommend it if you like anti-fairytales. Have you ever played in a campaign where the bad guys always win? It gets very fustrating when you are always outclassed and out-resourced. Eventually, your decisions start to be more grey in nature.
preacher of nothing 08-07-04, 02:17 AM	a18ffe: not if i'm playing one of the evil guys :D thanks all....you all make great points. My great big question is...why can't people change their opinion? I'm not an evil fanatic, so i just think that good should change appearance a bit. Make the good guys intelligent, make them some sort of mirror of the evil guy, only working/fighting for the good side. That way with all the luck/muscle/help they get from others, they'll be SURE to beat the living crap out of the bad guys. But to my own opinion, i think that this sort of mentality will not change soon. Good heroes have to overcome the difficulties by raw strength or performing some task that will then lead to more power for them. That may be because it's easier for people to simply imagine that all they have to do is beat the crap out of so called bad guys and gradually progress in strength to face the big bad evil guy/girl (bbeg). what i foresee in the future are alternative good guys and alternative bad guys. Probably something like: 1. good guys are always muscly (that will never change. 2. good guys will be the sorts that need anger management 3. good guys will fear stuff, but overcome their fears. 4. movies/books/stories will focus on getting the good guy to rise above his human condition, to become a tool of an ideal (not just beat the crap out of everyone) also: 1. Bad guys will remain devious scheming intelligent bastards, tending towards lawful alignment not chaotic (in dnd terms) 2. Bad guys will generally be the charismatic folk...something dark and sinister always calls out. They'll most likely begin to be more vampire-ish in terms of aquiring help through seduction as much as through force and fear. 3. Bad guys may actually stop having cohorts (have you noticed there's always an evil chick or something?), thus making them less vulnerable to attacks from behind. Think Dispater, lord of the sixth...or seventh??? not sure... Always having three or more contingency plans. Paranoia rules supreme among bad guys, and that will mean there will always be an escape route for them. If they disappear before the final blow, the more complex the story, the more important the climax. And as an answer to those that have said that evil guys always lose because of their dumb mistakes, that's very true. And very sad as well. It's almost annoying...no ******* annoying how storymakers create an evil guy so intelligent he's about to take over the world, but then leaves only one inept guard (or anything else....). I REALLY hope that will change in the future... Anyway, thanks for all the answers and keep em coming. I'm loving this talk
Mitchell 08-07-04, 03:59 AM	Sherlock Holmes. Not a muscle head. Smart. His nemesis was perhaps the 2nd smartest man in the world. Behind Holmes. How smart is a bad guy that chooses to try and match wits with the only man on earth smarter than he is? You can go through a bunch of examples of smart bad guys. People like plots and whatnot, and if the average guy is going to take them down, there needs to be a catalyst. Therefore, Lex Luthor plots, Superman foils (you can also wonder why Luthor needs to prove himself by challenging the most powerful being on earth, but hey). If you use this for a reference though, consider Doomsday. Now there was a thinking man's villain :rolleyes: . But now look at the story. Doomsday shows up and starts trashing things. Heroes intervene, and are now counted amongst the things Doomsday has trashed. Hardly a complicated story. Everybody was smarter than him, though. Of course, looking at one of your comments, you seem to want to discount the evil engine of destruction type villain, instead focusing on the mastermind type villains. Obviously, if you compare the average IQ of these great criminal masterminds with that of every hero, it will favor the villains. You can't ask why it is that Lex Luthor always loses since the Hulk is so stupid. It doesn't work that way. We like action. The change in James Bond films from a plot that slowly unfurls and is figured out by our hero to that of wall to wall action is indicative of this. Somebody has to be beating up somebody somewhere. Heroes tend to fight more because they're the reason we watch/read. They'll be on the page or screen more, so more action this way. I know one thing, though. The heroes are smart enough to stick with what works, and if that means playing dumb, then so be it.
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-07-04, 04:12 AM	Evil wins all the time, but good spin doctoring always make it 'Good'.
was_fired 08-07-04, 04:42 AM	This actually takes me back to a conversation my PCs had with a guard a while back. PC: You have to help fight the undead! Guard: Why? PC: Because they are going to attack the city so we have to stop them now or they will kill everyone! Guard: The undead don't win. The undead never win. When was the last time the undead won anything? PC:...
Vaypah 08-07-04, 05:52 AM	You all make a good point. I had actually forgotten about Sherlock. Thanks Mitchell. However i tend to agree with The Preacher (Preacher, huh?). In DnD terms at least. So far i've only met 2 guys who like paladins and actually play paladin characters. Let's just say their INT wasn't that high. I mean the players, not the characters. For example, at lvl 5 we stumbled into the lair of a Black Dragon(Ancient, methinks) and the first thing our paladin did was to declare a charge. Luckily we managed to convince the DM to ignore him while we had a little discution with the said paladin.(Him BIG+us small=LUNCH FOR DRAGON). Has anyone here heard of Hercule Poirot? There's another example of a smart good guy. But I guess that comes with the territory(he's a private investigator, like Sherlock Holmes). Also smart Forgotten Realms good guys/galls include Ma Man Elminster, Blackstaff and Lady Alustriel. Sooooo not all good guys are dumb, just most of them.:D But this just makes the bad guys job much easyer :smirk:
LostDM 08-07-04, 06:48 AM	While you could certianly throw a modern action movie into DnD terms, I think it might be more usefull to look at more in Genre referances. Take for instance Beowulf. I don't recall their being any flies on him. Or Ullyses he often solved things with his mind, like when he tied himself to the mast of his ship so he couldn't do anything to follow the Sirens song. Hecrules was never dumb until Disney took over. Certianly in LOTR all the main charaters were moderately aristocratic and seemed to have as much education and social grace as their nation could afford. So I think good is reasonable intelligent in this genre. And to think of evil is typically non-human and had either no or otherworldly intelligence. Really I think it would be good if people more often put their BBEG under the influence of a BBEM, as the wizard in LOTR was under the thum of the Eye.
preacher of nothing 08-07-04, 07:43 AM	Vaypah - yes, it was ancient, stop talking about my adventures dm-ing you...it will become dangerously embarrassing. And yes, the paladin was an idiot...the character too. Remember his 6 intelligence????? Anyway, both Mitchell and LostDM make good points. So i'll try to state my own personal opinion on both: Mitchell: All investigator type characters, be they in books or movies, have to be intelligent (the characters from Scooby Doo excluded of course). However, i don't see them as good. I see them more towards neutral. Or maybe MAYBE neutral goodit all depends on the story really, and while the noble englishman that pursues crime is indeed led by good, the belgian french accented Hercule Poirot might not. It's all about how you look at it really. I'm also thinking right now about the movie "From Hell" with Johnny Depp as the investigator that finds out who Jack the Ripper is. He used intelligence. And yet, there was a line inthe movies that i REALLY liked that said "He displays the sort of common annoying intelligence, so often met in the lower classes" hehehe...snobbish...isn't it? LostDM: mythological good guys always were intelligent....or mostly. Especially greek ones. And those that weren't especially intelligent got helped by the Gods, simply because they were offsprings or because the Gods just liked to toy with them. keep em comin boys
preacher of nothing 08-07-04, 07:47 AM	oh, and as for vaypah, those are "chosen of Mystra" my friend, as in their intelligence was a result of their tie to a deity... The only possible things in the DND world you could throw at me are the metallic dragons and the Gods (and maybe a few critters like the couatl)
Undercover 08-07-04, 08:02 AM	I guess it highly depends on the type of villain we're talking about. A street gang that sells drugs and have wild parties doesn't strike me as intelligent. A powerful politician admired by many and re-elected several times that bends every law (or make laws) to his own benefit seems very very smart. Also the lone and mad BBEG (like a psycho serial killer) isn't really what I like to run when I'm DMing. Something along the lines of a Mafia family or a group of conspirers is just much more interesting. Sure dumb good guys can handle that street gang, but what the hell are they going to do against the politician? And who defeats an evil politician is usually another to usurp his place. My wyrm red dragon is perfectly well polymorphed, seducing the queen and getting the admiration of every noble and guildmaster. :devil:
LostDM 08-07-04, 08:22 AM	Well back on the subject of DnD. If your a level one adventurer your better in both potential and actuallity than 80% of the populice. Your not an everyman. In fact, I like to remind my players of this. In the town of Desultory their is the Everyman Tavern, with a big sign, no adventures allowed. (They go to the Pub #9.) So this ain't no Bruce Willus, I'm an adroable action star watch be bumble to success thing. This is watching the good blood rise to the top and confirming the determinist status of birth. The investigator is actually a good model for the Paladin. What do you think Herionous god of Justice does with his warriors? To put it in modern terms I think Paladins should be played two parts FBI one part National Guard. They should either have authority from the king to execute the law (in the countryside, cities are different) or if their is no strong political force they can assume such a role. Of course I've never read any Paladin supplements so I don't know if my view is standard.
Shemeska the Marauder 08-07-04, 08:35 AM	Successful evil tends to be pragmatic above all else, and secondly, unconcerned with the welfare of anyone besides themselves or directly pertaining to their goals. Typically you'll find this in NE or LE persons, and fair or not, they're more likely to have long standing positions within a world as opposed to a CE person.
ck2001wendt 08-07-04, 08:47 AM	There are smart heroes and stupid heroes, smart villians and stupid villians: Smart Heroes: -Gandalf -Elminster, the Gandalf Clone -Charles Xavier -Sherlock Homes Stupid Heroes: -Caramon Majere -Tanis Half-Elven, to a degree (definitely prone to bad decisions). -King Arthur, to a large extent. -Most any action-movie character. Smart Villians: -Dr. Doom -Lex Luthor -Magneto -Raistalin Majere -Zzass Tam...this guy runs a whole freaking country! Stupid Villians: -The Juggernaut -the Rhino -the Abomination -Doomsday Of course there are heroes and Villians that are smart AND strong: -Batman: The Worlds Greatest Detective, but also the world´s greatest martial artist. -Ulyssess: Who will ever forget that Horse? But Ulyssess also had a longbow that only a man of his strength could string and use (which he then used to slaughter Penelope´s wedding suitors...classic). -Darkseid: Both Superman level strength and Luthor-level Intelligence...and the ruler of a World. -Jason Bourne: Did anyone watch the Bourne Identity? One of the greatest Spy movies ever. I think a lot of the idea behind the "noble but dumb heroe" vs. the "brilliant but evil schemer" comes from humanity´s innate distrust of intelligence...intelligence often being correlated with progressive or revolutionary thought, while big brawny men harken back to the the farm and feudalism, the shop floor and the battlefield. You´ll notice that even smart heroes (like Sherlock) tend to be a little mentally unbalanced or have their vices...think "The 7% Solution." Think back...how valued was intelligence when you were growing up, versus the ability to hit a home run or plain old attractiveness? If you can´t judge the book by its cover, there must be something fishy about the book...this lives on today in the marginalization of the unathletic or those with poor social skills. Vaalingrad is on the right track...Good wins because most of us want to be thought of as Good. Ask yourself: how many wars Evil has won in history? What nation or empire has self-identified as "evil?"
Thorak 08-07-04, 02:27 PM	I think ck might have hit a key point; the distrust of intelligence. If the good guy is outwitting the bad guy, then can we really trust him to not see the benefits of the bad guy's plan going through, with him at the helm instead to mitigate the bad bits? Not to mention, all good stories need conflict. And it's really difficult to create conflict if the hero is noticeably more intelligent than his enemy; it's clear from the get-go that he'll just outwit his enemy. The only question is how. It's much more suspenseful and conflict-creating (which translates into "interesting") for the hero to be at best on-par with the enemy, if not outmatched. Then, there's no clear method for him to win. If he's brawnier than the enemy, then the enemy will have thousands of equally brawny guards to ensure he never gets close enough. As an example from recent fiction; David Eddings released a few years ago a novel; The Redemption of Althalus. One of the characters was a kid who was so uber-smart he could outwit anyone, including the enemy's smart guy. And by 'outwit', we're talking 'run mental circles around in his sleep'. The last half of the book was less "how are the heroes going to manage to save the day?" and more "what gags are they going to pull as this next plan that's obviously going to work goes off?". And as such, it was much less interesting than Eddings' other works, which are decent stories. There was simply no conflict; I was wondering as I read why they didn't just finish it off sooner, since they clearly had the ability to. Eddings had to Deus Ex Machina it with a prophecy that decreed they do things according to a certain pre-ordained plan. So they can't teleport that massive army into the enemy's fortress and slaughter their much-smaller army because "that's not how it's supposed to happen". And regarding Riddick; after the Chronicles of Riddick, I feel gipped. I was promised an antihero, a guy who's nasty and evil, but saves the day because the bad guys are even worse. Instead, I was given a full-blooded hero, one who happens to just be more violent than most people, and unlike most other heroes of that type, wasn't inducted into the protection force of the good guys to channel that violence early on. Riddick's a good guy. He's not evil in any sense of the term. In the first movie, he refused to leave the others behind when he could have escaped, and risked himself to try and save a single person. Not evil. In the second, he felt guilty for what happened to that girl, and when he saved the day, you're not left with a "Oh god, there's a new evil emperor" feeling, but a "Goody, now Riddick can stop the madness and make the empire stop being evil". I want a really evil antihero. Hollywood has consistently failed to deliver. Riddick's a washout, Dr. Hyde from The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen turned out to just want to be accepted for who he is, and so on. Give me a hero who likes to kill puppies, and is only a hero because the evil emperor taking over the world would make it harder for him to get ahold of soft, defenseless puppies.
Lina_Inverse 08-07-04, 03:09 PM	well yes,evil is the SMART CHOICE.this is obvious,the evil choice is often the practical one.but ill say it again,evil dosent win because evil collapses on itself.well except lawfull evil,LAWFULL EVIL PEOPLE SCARE ME @_@ i mean there evil,thats SMART @_@ but who wants to play realistic fantasy where the evil lord always wins while the good heros always die.give me heroic fantasy anytime.
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-07-04, 06:19 PM	Originally posted by Lina_Inverse but who wants to play realistic fantasy where the evil lord always wins while the good heros always die.give me heroic fantasy anytime. I find this staement combined with your screen name highly amusing. I prefer moraly ambiguous main characters (like your namesake) myself makes them more real.
Aki Warren 08-07-04, 07:55 PM	Well, yes, evil is smarter. It's why I always play evil :D Even my paladins are less then perfect (Picture Wiegarf from FFT, or Delitia...but Delitia is a villian, sorta) Simply put, it really isn't a matter of intelligence. Par-salian was in no way stupid when compared to Raistlin Majere. But who would you back? Raistlin Majere. Simply put, Raistlin would kill anyone, and sacrifice anything for more power. Par-salian, has his limits. He will only go so far to win. Evil is simply more practical then the foolish forces of good. Now, if you want to see a Dark good, I reccomend world of darkness, or Warhammer 40k. I would definatly back the forces of good in both of those, because they are still evil, just heroic, lol. Also, if your into manga, read redemption. It's a great book, and the hero in it is very Dark. He feeds on hookers, kills without mercy, and is generally an ass. Man, I love him :D
Cymraegmorgan 08-07-04, 08:13 PM	I think, in DnD terms, the problem is your players play good stupidly. Two Paladins are in my group, both intelligent and both roleplayed intelligently and well. In the great fantasy literature, good is intelligent and able, like John Carter, Tarzan, Eric Brighteyes, Aragorn, Count Brass. To reply to Aki Warren, evil is not more practical. It is merely more convenient in the short term.
Wizard_Of_Arl 08-07-04, 08:42 PM	Originally posted by Thorak I think ck might have hit a key point; the distrust of intelligence. If the good guy is outwitting the bad guy, then can we really trust him to not see the benefits of the bad guy's plan going through, with him at the helm instead to mitigate the bad bits? Not to mention, all good stories need conflict. And it's really difficult to create conflict if the hero is noticeably more intelligent than his enemy; it's clear from the get-go that he'll just outwit his enemy. The only question is how. It's much more suspenseful and conflict-creating (which translates into "interesting") for the hero to be at best on-par with the enemy, if not outmatched. Then, there's no clear method for him to win. If he's brawnier than the enemy, then the enemy will have thousands of equally brawny guards to ensure he never gets close enough. As an example from recent fiction; David Eddings released a few years ago a novel; The Redemption of Althalus. One of the characters was a kid who was so uber-smart he could outwit anyone, including the enemy's smart guy. And by 'outwit', we're talking 'run mental circles around in his sleep'. The last half of the book was less "how are the heroes going to manage to save the day?" and more "what gags are they going to pull as this next plan that's obviously going to work goes off?". And as such, it was much less interesting than Eddings' other works, which are decent stories. There was simply no conflict; I was wondering as I read why they didn't just finish it off sooner, since they clearly had the ability to. Eddings had to Deus Ex Machina it with a prophecy that decreed they do things according to a certain pre-ordained plan. So they can't teleport that massive army into the enemy's fortress and slaughter their much-smaller army because "that's not how it's supposed to happen". And regarding Riddick; after the Chronicles of Riddick, I feel gipped. I was promised an antihero, a guy who's nasty and evil, but saves the day because the bad guys are even worse. Instead, I was given a full-blooded hero, one who happens to just be more violent than most people, and unlike most other heroes of that type, wasn't inducted into the protection force of the good guys to channel that violence early on. Riddick's a good guy. He's not evil in any sense of the term. In the first movie, he refused to leave the others behind when he could have escaped, and risked himself to try and save a single person. Not evil. In the second, he felt guilty for what happened to that girl, and when he saved the day, you're not left with a "Oh god, there's a new evil emperor" feeling, but a "Goody, now Riddick can stop the madness and make the empire stop being evil". I want a really evil antihero. Hollywood has consistently failed to deliver. Riddick's a washout, Dr. Hyde from The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen turned out to just want to be accepted for who he is, and so on. Give me a hero who likes to kill puppies, and is only a hero because the evil emperor taking over the world would make it harder for him to get ahold of soft, defenseless puppies. If what u want is anti-heroes any of the books in the age of darkness series by hugh cook are great reads, particularly The Witchlord and the Weaponmaster (u can even read this online if u can handle 57 complex and confusing chapters http://zenvirus.com/wizard-wizards-warrior-warriors/read-free-online-sword-sorcery-novel.html Now theres a book without an alignment system:D
Vaypah 08-07-04, 09:31 PM	I beg to differ, Preacher. They are Chosen of Mystra because they are intelligent. They're not intelligent because they are Chosen. Why would Mystra, goddess of magic, pick a bunch of idiots to be her chosen and then make them smart? BTW, have you ever heard of Cadderly Bonaduce(well, ok he's a Chosen of Deneir, but once again he was chosen BECAUSE of his intelligence and not in spite of it-just read the books) or even Drizzt. Sure, he gets lucky sometimes, but how lucky can one be to give Lloth up, survive and then come back and humilliate her greatest priestess and still get away with it(besides, he always had a plan-sort of :) ). And there are more heroes in the Forgotten Realms who show signs of intelligence and who aren't chosen of some deity or another(Robillard comes to mind). So don't tell me that gold dragons are the only good-aligned creatures who are smart enough to outsmart a villain.
jasper 08-08-04, 12:20 AM	Originally posted by mycroft65536 ..Example: in Unbreakable Sam Jackson's goal was to create a super hero (not a smart goal for a bad guy) no It went deeper than that . A child influence by comics and his brittle bone condition, want to see if he was on one end of spectrum could he discover a guy from the other end. After decades of not finding him he flips out and decides to see if he can create the super hero. Of course this is just seeing the chop up tv verision. I will be buying a copy of the movie.
Thorak 08-08-04, 12:29 AM	Originally posted by Wizard_Of_Arl If what u want is anti-heroes any of the books in the age of darkness series by hugh cook are great reads, particularly The Witchlord and the Weaponmaster (u can even read this online if u can handle 57 complex and confusing chapters http://zenvirus.com/wizard-wizards-warrior-warriors/read-free-online-sword-sorcery-novel.html Now theres a book without an alignment system:D Another good one that messes with the concepts of good and evil is the Coldfire trilogy by C.S. Friedman. And there, we've got a great anti-hero, though I won't discuss it in detail because it would ruin the books and the process of discovery about his character. But he's about as evil and horrible a guy as I've ever seen, and yet he's still intelligent, and a necessary ally in the fight against a greater evil. Which is why I scoff so hard at Riddick and the pathetic Hollywood belief that Riddick qualifies as "evil". He's killed people, but he's irrevocably kind-hearted throughout both movies. If I had to assign him a D&D alignment, it'd be CG, because he only kills people who screw with him and those he cares about.
jasper 08-08-04, 12:43 AM	hmm ok with most movies you have to go with stock footage, stock characters, and stock sterotypes. Which makes every 10years the same movie comes out with different actors, different ticket prices and special effects but same story which gets ignored by all the other generations which don't go to because either they saw x time 10 year ago or were too young. Which real funny and one these days I will rent Mike Milers Austin powers movie to see uncut. That movie pokes fun at all the spy and all the stupid bad guy movies. Imagine what would had happen if Scott had concel a 38 in his pocket and after the second shsttth sush etc Scott just emptied a clip into Mike Myers.. Road killer good guy. Will good win over evil. No and yes. It swings. Unlike the movies and most books Sometimes the bad guy wins. Can you say Axis 1941 and the Say the allies 1944. But in d&d life generally neutral wins. Especially if your true neutral. I tick off some players before the group shut down by having a true neutral druid start helping the evil orcs because the goody goody shoes were winning. As to the Borune identity and the new movie. I have already send this movie before. Cant remember the title but in ten years will the new flock of rpg remember it or will Dad's secret ninja assassin template be lame because it is a lame attempt at the Jasper Identity which open in May to record box office takes staring Son of Seeker95 not appearing in this movie.
Khelvaster 08-08-04, 02:02 PM	The problem in most modern stories is that the bad guys have some flamboyantly sadistic tendancies. Thats why games bond has to get killed slowly and not just shot in the head. If you have seen the madness combat flash series, that is a good example of the anti-hero...
psionichamster 08-08-04, 03:32 PM	well, a lot of people are looking at the classic fantasy genres and films for examples of anti-heroes, people who act "selflessly" from non-traditional aspects, or who have some kind of flaw inherent in them... try some cyberpunk mad max...max helps himself. period. i mean, he had his wife, the bad guys killed her and his kid, so he offs the whole gang...the later ones make him more of a loser escape from new york...snake pliskin is coerced into getting the president from his crash landing with a neurotoxin that can only be deactivated if he succeeds, so he does, and destroys the reason the president was flying out in the first place johnny mnemnonic...or anything by william gibson. this is the guy who STARTED cyberpunk, back in 1984, with Neuromancer so johnny, an information courier, hacks the data stored in his headware and outs it free to the populace...the data? the cure to the most detrimental new disease of the modern era... and fantasy is not free of similar kinds of characters...in Heroes Die by matthew woodring stover, the main character Caine is as bad-ass as any i've ever read, and damn smart to boot spiderman, mr. fantastic, dr. strange, hank mcoy- the beast, prof. xavier, the bat (of course), martian manhunter, the atom, and pretty much every main char in Alan Moore's watchmen are all really bright, and strong, and ostensibly "good" guys so, the stereotype is there, but there are plenty of counter examples around...odysseus/ulysses is one of my personal favorite examples from the classical mode
grazzt_the_dark 08-08-04, 06:31 PM	Originally posted by Khelvaster Thats why games bond has to get killed slowly and not just shot in the head. Technically, I think the slow death idea is a good thing. Killing a person slowly might cause them to blab something that they wouldn't have otherwise, in order to end the pain. It also sends signals to your underlings that you are not a person to be messed with, as doing so will be extremely painful. Of course, a smart villain actually supervises said slow death, and makes certain the hero can't escape. Like Goldfinger did. On topic, although their are plenty of smart and stupid people on both sides, is it just me but are the stupid heroes and the smarter villains more popular than the smart heroes and the stupid villains?
Grox 08-08-04, 07:25 PM	Originally posted by grazzt_the_dark On topic, although their are plenty of smart and stupid people on both sides, is it just me but are the stupid heroes and the smarter villains more popular than the smart heroes and the stupid villains? It has nothing to do with American culture (in particular). It has nothing to do with whether good is "smarter" than evil. It has nothing to do with the mechanics of good or evil in the real world. Most modern entertainment is "dumbed down", to be marketed to the lowest common denominator. A stupid person who spends their whole paycheck on going to the movies, renting DVDs, and subscribing to porn on the Internet just *spends more money on entertainment* than the guy they used to go to high school with who is now a successful chemist working overtime for a multinational pharmaceutical company . . . *despite* the stupid person's lower income. Also, stories where victory is gained through intelligence --- by good OR by evil --- tend to be too complicated for stupid people to follow. So stupidity often beats intelligence in entertainment, because said entertainment is marketed toward stupid consumers who prefer it that way. And who got the idea that good wins IRL? It usually doesn't, actually ---- good people are just too apathetic, and aren't ruthless enough to endanger their loved ones by acting directly against evil. But then again, I think that most people who SAY they want evil to win are actually rooting for "chaos", not evil . . . they just want some variance in the vanilla-style entertainment I described above. Because what always wins, IRL anyway, is LAW.
Schmendrick 08-09-04, 04:44 PM	Another note on the whole good/evil intelligence deal: It's not just intelligence. Strong people (from whatever standpoint: high Int, high Cha, high Str, etc...) tend to be prideful, thinking more of themselves than others. Why? Because they are better (at least in terms of their particular strength). Left uncontrolled, a prideful attitude leans toward not only the elevation of oneself but a devaluation of others -- which is evil. After all, why concern yourself with the laws and conventions of inferior, insignificant people? As for intelligence in particular-- intelligence [can] lead to some of the greatest power. In the real (or, at least, modern) world, high intelligence lets you avail yourself of high technology -- quite possibly customized for your personal ends. In DnD, it gives you access to a similar power: magic. And, even setting aside technology and magic, a high intelligence lets you manipulate others -- particularly when paired with sufficient quantities of charisma. Ease of manipulation, of course, is only further evidence that they are inferior and ethically immaterial). And down that road lies evil. I think, if anything, the causality is not evil -> intelligence, it's intelligence -> evil. Which is why the smart bad edit: er... good guy is so much cooler. He's got the same "better than everyone else" attribute as the maniacal genius, but he still associates (and values) the common folk... the people listening to / watching the story.
Dragonspirit 08-09-04, 05:08 PM	Look at real life evil. Hitler, Saddam... things didn't turn out good for them, and they were smart and evil. The fact is, evil is often the product of a warped mind, so that even though it's intelligent, it isn't necessarily focused in a truly beneficial matter. Whenever evil is in control, it's always temporary. Eventually the people uprise, and kill those that have held them down. And even in the meantime, assuming you take control and no one takes you out during your lifetime -- what do you really have to show for it? Evil consumes itself... there's always another gangster, dictator, despot etc ready to fill the void (and to cause one!) No true love can be reciprocated, either with your people, your friends or even your family and if you're truly intelligent your realize that. And that's not even factoring an afterlife! So then, knowing how evil ultimately destroys itself, wouldn't it be a paradox to call someone who was knowingly evil intelligent? Oh wait, wrong stat -- that's 'wisdom' in D&D terms. :)
Egres 08-09-04, 05:28 PM	Originally posted by Dragonspirit Look at real life evil. Hitler, Saddam... things didn't turn out good for them, and they were smart and evil. Only two things: 1)About Hitler:have you ever heard of Odessa? Try a search and see what kind of life people like Alois Brunner or Aribert Heim lived,and try to say another time that "bad guys" don't "win". 2)Perhaps,it would be better to avoid real life examples.at least outside the Mature Boards.
Grox 08-11-04, 02:07 AM	Originally posted by Dragonspirit Whenever evil is in control, it's always temporary. Eventually the people uprise, and kill those that have held them down. Unfortunately for your argument, it applies to "good" powers-that-be as well as evil ones. No power structure lasts forever. A "good" power structure, if you can accept such a thing, is probably more vulnerable from without than from within, but in the end it too cannot last forever. Dictators are just very charismatic people who "rise to the top" in especially brutal political systems. However, I think it's rare that a dictator turns out to be the "smartest" person playing the political game in their realm. The "smart" people learn from experience that being in the #1 spot can often get you killed. More often, I think the smartest people are the ones in the dictator's "inner circle", who like money & power but lack the charisma to be in charge --- or who are just too cowardly to be THAT big a target to their enemies. Medieval monarchs, who were sometimes genuinely well-liked by their aristocracies and who were often trained for the role by a lengthy "princehood", tended to have the savvy to see through flatterers and yes-men more often than modern dictators. Men like Hitler and Saddam rule through so much fear that their "inner circle" --- made up of people SMARTER than them --- tend to just parrot whatever the dictator wants to hear. Unlike the kings of old, the modern dictator tends to BELIEVE his own press about how he can't lose. Sooner or later you have Hitler believing he can fight all his enemies at once, or Saddam believing that he can send the Republican Guard to occupy Yankee Stadium. If I was on "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire" and was considering who to call for help on a tricky question, I'd call Goebbels over Hitler (or Tariq Aziz over Saddam Hussein) any day.
mythandra 08-11-04, 11:40 AM	sherlock holmes tom sawyer batman (see batman vs superman) james bond jack ryan series (tom clancy) indiana jones shall I go on? Your theory is disproved, Q.E.D.
lantzer 08-11-04, 12:11 PM	Originally posted by Mitchell [B]Sherlock Holmes. Not a muscle head. Smart. His nemesis was perhaps the 2nd smartest man in the world. Behind Holmes. Actually, I'd say Moriarty was smarter than Sherlock, but still 2nd. Sherlock was #3. #1 was his brother, Mycroft. Moriarty's biggest handicap was the usual one for villians: Plot protection.
lantzer 08-11-04, 12:20 PM	I'd agree with the opinion stated earlier that it isn't that Good is dumber, but the Evil is _prepared_. Evil in many stories is Proactive. These are the folks who drive the story. Good is Reactive. Their primary strength is toppling Evil. When was the last time you read a story with the overpowering forces of Good creating an intricate plot to make everybody in the world happy, with Evil underdogs attempting to evade the minions of Good and working their way to the Good stronghold (with a romance developing on the way) to confront the leaders of Good in their lair and defeat them?
crazysamaritan 08-11-04, 12:32 PM	Since we are having a discussion on Evil Overlords, here is the mandatory plug!
Tony Vargas 08-11-04, 01:12 PM	Media trends aside, D&D alignments do rather dictate that good be 'dumb' in a sense... but, then, the same is true of D&D evil. Extreme alignments limit your behavior, or, rather, they indicate a commitment or impluse to a certain sort of behavior even when it's really not the smartest sort of behavior to engage in. D&D evil does stupidly evil things, and good does stupidly good things, no matter what thier INT/WIS/CHA might be like. Nuetrals have the luxury of pragmatism and can take full advantage of thier sentience...
Super Guy 08-11-04, 01:59 PM	I don't see how evil wins IRL. The people who work to bust criminals, the scientists behind it all who invented DNA fingerprinting, DNA evidence, finding this and finding out who bought this and when and how and where and who this could be limited to, etc... would consider themselves good. They work hard to bust someone who they think is evil, and they're very smart. Evil might claim a few deaths, or sometimes many deaths (i.e. the Holocaust), but does it ever triumph? Do intelligent serial killers get away with it? Ted Bundy... the Night stalker... Were they stupid? No, they were very intelligent. Did they get caught by the 'good guys'? Yeah. I can't think of any evil guys, off-hand, in our modern-day times (I'll say between 1900 - Current) that got away with it without having to pay the ultimate price. And if there are, then there aren't many of them. Particularly in the higher and more developed countries, there's not a lot of room for 'evil' to hide, and as time moves forward and more systems are made to bust evil, it will have even less space to hide. I am not defending good because I'm a goody-two-shoes and can't see that there is greed and hatred and violence in this world. As far as alignments go, I'm probably True Neutral. But really, it seems like the 'evil always wins' arguments are often just thrown in (not neccesarily in this topic) by misanthropic whiners. So, there, there's your unbiased opinion on the matter.
Egres 08-11-04, 05:05 PM	The people who work to bust criminals, the scientists behind it all who invented DNA fingerprinting, DNA evidence, finding this and finding out who bought this and when and how and where and who this could be limited to, etc... would consider themselves good. They work hard to bust someone who they think is evil, and they're very smart A C.S.I. fan?;) However,i've never seen this good guys applying their knowledge and good will against presidents of some nations.........would you consider these "presidents" "good"?
Encard 08-11-04, 07:29 PM	I wouldn't say that evil is smarter than good, no. Evil is generally more pragmatic than good, since it doesn't take harm to other into account (or, at least, not to the same degree) but that doesn't make it smarter. Now, paladin were mentioned... From a D&D standpoint, it's not really surprising that paladin characters are often not exceptionally intelligent. The same goes for a lot of the other melee and ranged classes. After all, Int generally isn't counted as one of the core stats for those classes. Some people will put high scores into Int, but many will pass it up in favor of stats that seems more likely to help them bash stuff into a bloody pulp. This, however, is just as true for evil characters. In fact, when you think about the sheer number of stupid evil things the characters kill, there's a fair chance it's going to greatly outweigh the number of smart evil things they encounter, and the number of stupid good things they encounter. Evil itself isn't smart... It's just that the ringleaders often are. This isn't too surprising, either, since intelligence is rather helpful if you want to organize your evil organization with any great amount of success. The same is true for good, in a lot of cases: the characters who lead are at least somewhat intelligent. Now, as for movies... I've got to agree with some of the previous posters that modern entertainment is generally dumbed down. The heroes are often (although definitely not always) stupid because the audience isn't going to appreciate intelligence nearly as much as the ability to bash in peoples' heads. The evil guy is (supposedly) smart becauser evil plots set up an easy premise for a movie, and it feeds so nicely into a generic evil meglomaniacal personality. Really, though, even the evil characters are often not too intelligent... They often seem completely unable to do anything but follow the plan, even when it's obvious that the plan is not working well at all, they take stupid risks, etc. Oh, and as a last point... When you think about it in D&D terms, being evil at all may be a very stupid idea in the first place. After all, depending on the setting you're playing in, there may very well be some nasty stuff in store for evil characters after they die. Since in many settings the existence of deities is more or less proven, all an evil character is doing is ignoring whatever unending torments are in store for him after death in favor of a few years of increased fun. In a more ambiguous setting that may work out ok, but not (in my opinion, anyway) if the character knows he's going to be paying for his actions in a lot more pain than they're worth. *shrug*
Grox 08-11-04, 10:51 PM	Originally posted by Super Guy I don't see how evil wins IRL. Evil might claim a few deaths, or sometimes many deaths (i.e. the Holocaust), but does it ever triumph? Do intelligent serial killers get away with it? Ted Bundy... the Night stalker... Were they stupid? No, they were very intelligent. Did they get caught by the 'good guys'? Yeah. I can't think of any evil guys, off-hand, in our modern-day times (I'll say between 1900 - Current) that got away with it without having to pay the ultimate price. And if there are, then there aren't many of them. Particularly in the higher and more developed countries, there's not a lot of room for 'evil' to hide, and as time moves forward and more systems are made to bust evil, it will have even less space to hide. You're making some unwarranted assumptions here. As far as millions of people were concerned, the Nazis DID "win". In the short term, they certainly defeated Anne Frank, who IMO certainly leans toward the "good" end of the alignment spectrum. This defeat was total --- they killed her. How did they not "triumph"? Because of the last line she wrote in her diary? OK, but then you seem to be artificially setting up the rule that evil doesn't "win" as long as good people remain good. Maybe a valid philosophical position, but not real useful for entertainment purposes (like D&D). Your basic D&D characters who die in a TPK probably won't feel that they "won" because their alignments didn't change. Even conceding this extreme point, however, how does "good" ever win while evil people remain evil? Nuremberg showed most of the Nazi war criminals remaining defiant and proud of their actions to the bitter end, so if Anne Frank's actions say she was not "defeated", well then neither were they. Did the Nazis fail to "triumph" because their government eventually fell, years later? That proves nothing --- all governments fall. By that standard, no country or government ever "wins"; I suppose if you extend that standard, no individual person ever "wins" because they eventually die. As for killers "getting away with it", serial killers or otherwise, I've got some unpleasant news for you: by those standards, they "win" most of the time. Between 70 and 90 percent of all crimes remain unsolved, depending on the crime and the jurisdiction --- the rate of unsolved murders is lower since our justice system expends so much of its resources on homocide, but more than half of all killings in the U.S. remain unsolved. I won't specifically address "serial killers" per se, since AFAIK there are different credible definitions of the term. But since most violent criminals are repeat offenders, it seems reasonable to assume that a considerable number of individuals regularly murder and get away with it. Of COURSE you can't think of many criminals who "got away with it". . . most of them are never identified, OJ Simpson notwithstanding. The first man who ever hijacked an airliner, who actually parachuted out of it in order to escape with a bag of money, certainly got alive with his booty. And in light of the (understandable) policies of police departments, banks, and the FDIC, the "success rate" of bank robberies is quite high. It's almost a good investment to rob banks today. You claim that in the "more developed countries", there is less room for evil to hide. You are, however, assuming that "evil" has to HIDE. Evil doesn't have to hide in North Korea, it's in CHARGE. There are an awful lot of countries where evil rules --- where the ones driven into hiding are the ones who want to engage in political speech or religious beliefs of their choice.
ck2001wendt 08-12-04, 01:14 AM	Jack the Ripper "got away with it." Though as was said before, I would leave extrememly sensitive subjects (like the Holocaust) out of this discussion...it´s a great way to get it shut down. ---------------------------------------------- Now, paladin were mentioned... From a D&D standpoint, it's not really surprising that paladin characters are often not exceptionally intelligent. The same goes for a lot of the other melee and ranged classes. After all, Int generally isn't counted as one of the core stats for those classes. Some people will put high scores into Int, but many will pass it up in favor of stats that seems more likely to help them bash stuff into a bloody pulp. ------------------------------------------------ I like this argument a lot! "Of course Fighters and Paladins are stupid...Int is their dump stat!"
Grox 08-12-04, 09:25 AM	Yeah, I've characterized Anne Frank as "good" and the Nazis as "evil" --- really going out on a limb there:D Sorry dude, but if others start complaining how this thread has offended them, Jack the Ripper is every bit as likely as Jack Chick to get the thread shut down . . . especially if the complainers play the "off topic" card. Since the system is by necessity reactive (responding to posters' complaints), there's not a lot of rhyme or reason as to what's "safe" or "not safe" to talk about once any thread makes even the slightest reference to the real world (which happened before I got here). I pretty much try to only go where other posters on a given thread have already gone. I also try to avoid insulting anyone. That's really as far as I'm prepared to go for this message board or any other. As much as I try to be polite to everyone, I am not going to invest the time to memorize the nuances of everyone's current interpretation of some vague, overbroad set of rambling, inconsistently-applied rules. If that's not good enough for you, try and get me kicked off; who knows, maybe it'll work. And guess what: I'll start posting somewhere else and my life will go on pretty much as before. There will be just as many RL references here as there were before. And the earth will turn again.
MarkB 08-12-04, 10:33 AM	There are plenty of smart heroes if you look beyond summer blockbuster films. Read some Lois McMaster Bujold novels sometime - Miles Vorkosigan (aristocrat, soldier, spy, sometime mercenary admiral) is a hero who's smart, cunning, subversive and underhanded. Or try Harry Harrison's Stainless Steel Rat novels - 'Slippery' Jim DiGriz, thief-turned-thiefcatcher, is a seriously smart anti-hero. As for why good is most often reactive, that's largely due to story structure - the good guys have to win in the end, but if they're winning from the start, it tends to deflate the tension. So evil has to start out in a strong position, or the dramatic build-up is difficult to achieve. That said, the rules change in series television. Take Alias for example - at various times, the good guys and the bad guys are being proactive or playing catch-up to different extents (though still, for that dramatic tension, the balance tends to be towards the bad guys). And Sydney Bristow is definitely a smart heroine.
Callista 08-12-04, 11:41 AM	Part of the reason good usually wins is that it is more popular. Most people in the world, IMO, are some flavor of Neutral... all they really want is to live out their normal lives, have kids, work their farms... whatever. Good is more conducive to that sort of an environment. Both Good and Evil people, I think, are in the minority; but those who are Good have most of the public on their side. Someone who's Good can rely on companions; the evil person has to watch out for sabotage constantly. Yes, evil people are smarter than good people--simply because evil people can rely only on themselves. Stupid evil people are killed off; stupid good people are protected by their companions. On the Evil side, there's a sort of survival of the fittest going on: There are fewer people, but the ones that exist are individually stronger. Evil people are free to be ruthless; but they are limited by the fierce competition which is born from that ruthlessness. On the Good side, it's strength through numbers and loyalty: There are a lot of people, and they depend on each other, allowing them to cooperate more effectively. Good people are restricted in their actions by their convictions; but because they need not compete as much as Evil people, they are free to make use of not only their own resources but those of their (numerous) allies. That doesn't make Evil stronger; it just means it has different strengths. And it doesn't make it any more desirable, either, even for those who would survive to the top of the Evil hierarchy; because those same people would end up leading the armies of Good. Evil people are not inherently smarter--the dumb Evil people just get killed more easily.
Grox 08-13-04, 10:02 AM	Originally posted by Callista Evil people are not inherently smarter--the dumb Evil people just get killed more easily. Great point.
Rotipher 08-13-04, 12:58 PM	I think there's another, more basic reason why the stereotypical "bad guy" in movies and low-end action novels usually comes across as so much smarter than the hero: preparation. Remember, such storylines almost always place the villain in a *pro-active* role -- they're the one with the 'master plan' that starts all the trouble -- whereas the hero is forced by circumstances to react to the villain's plots-in-progress. That means that the villain sets the goals which are to be achieved, and has time to investigate the situation and make allowances for what any potential opposition might try to do -- he/she's been working on this scheme for months or years, after all! -- while the hero has to come up with strategies and solutions on the spot, with limited background knowledge, and few clues as to what the villain is really after. It's the difference between taking an exam you've studied thoroughly for and taking a pop quiz.
Ranthanas 08-13-04, 03:30 PM	IME evil is cleverer but good is more intelligent. Evil thinks of plans and executes them, but the groundwork either conciously or unconsciously laid down by the forces of good is stronger. Evil has better tactics, but good has better strategy. And I second the recommendation for Miles Vorkosigan.
Gedrin 08-13-04, 08:13 PM	I would say that good and evil have little, if any bearing on intellect. However, evil is less restrained. This'll be a bit abstract, but it's a pretty abstract subject... There are ideas that may well occur to good people, but they would never do them. Evil will do them, and this tends to be the primary advantage of evil in acomplishing its goals. Evil is generally unrestrained by things so cumbersome as loyalty, honesty, or compassion. While it may be useful to emulate those traits on occasion, evil people tend not to let their actions and needs be bound by them. Good people, on the other hand, are restrained by concerns of those sorts. They tend to object to brutal enforcement of social order, or the practice of inflicting suffering on the individual for personal gain. Their actions are curtailed by their ethical/moral codes, and this limits them, placing them at a disadvantage. Good has fewer options that it is willing to choose from, when compared to evil. Regardless of your views on Law/Chaos, evil is morally (ie Good/Evil) free. Evil has a wider playground, and often explores that playground in ways that wouldn't occur to people unwilling to travel those roads. Evil people trapse down their trails of thoughts with ideas like "I'd have to kill him", or "I could just take her", or "I'll need an infant" often making even less than a speedbump in their thoughts. To good people, these ideas end that line of thought in most cases. Further, most social orders tend toward benevolence (good) to their populace. This is just because benevolent governance tends to be popular and popular governments endure better than unpopular ones, not any grand political thought. Evil also tends to be desirous, it wants things. These two components tend to place evil on offense when it's in action. Either by working against the common people (theives), or by trying to gain it's goals (take over X). Given that evil has a wider aray of tools to employ, and it is usually on offense, evil can be very potent when in action. On the other hand, good people have their toolset narrowed by their own moral restrictions. When they confront evil, they do it with fewer tools, so they tend to know those tools very well, and be very careful with how they use them. While good has a less broadly inventive manner, within its domain of ideas it must be more inventive in order to compete. Good people are interested in the moral consequences of their actions, and tend to ask questions like,"Is this the right thing to do?", "Will anyone else get hurt?", and "Can we find a less harmful way?" Because good is concerned with others, others tend to value good as exhibited by things such as loyalty. Some people make this choice for idealistic reasons, others choose so from "enlightened self interest". Good also typically starts on the defensive. Good gives the benefit of the doubt, and in most cases when dealing with evil, gets hit first. Good also normally knows it will be hit first, by something, so good starts with defense. Good doesn't normally want to be hit first, but pesky values like "innocent until proven guilty" and it's various cousins often prevent good from taking action until evil does first. Starting with defense is also in good's nature because good likes to preserve the life and welfare of people. Good tends to be better at defense than evil. That doesn't mean that good doesn't respond to evil once an action has been taken. Typically good responds with force preportional to the perception of the insult. Strong social orders will have established mechanisms for responding to acts against good and the social order (police). In areas where the social order is loose, forms of justice tend to be individualized. Either way, good communities bind together for self protection in ways that are not natural to evil. This is good's greatest strength. In then end, when discussing intellect, evil has more options which certainly lends to the perception that evil is somehow more cunning or brilliant. However, good, using its more limited scope of action, must be able to compete with the vast array of threats evil poses, typically while giving evil the first shot. Good must make better, ie more intelligent, use of its more limited breadth of actions. The best way, it seems to me, that one could judge the intellect of good vs. evil would be to measure how they compete in the world. I am aware that many terribly evil things occur. Good works are done. Evil is often punished, but not always. At the least, from my perspective, good and evil compete closely in the real world, and good wins most of the time where I live. In roleplaying games, they compete as closely as the GM would like them too. And I think there are some examples of smart good guys and dumb bad guys: "Law and Order" - most TV police detectives are protrayed as clever/intelligent John Sheridan (Babylon 5) Robin Hood Minions! (Igor, Greedo, fodder) lots of evil guys who are just minions The Villiage - Can't remeber his name, but he wasn't the sharpest tool in the shed Micky and Malory (Natrual Born Killers) - bruttaly and inovatively violent, but no Nobel Prizes here
preacher of nothing 08-16-04, 07:24 AM	WOW! A lot of replies since i last checked. I have to say that i value and appreciate all of them. These are all very good arguments on both sides. And now opinion time: China has had revolutions and is still under communism. Romania has had a revolution and is no longer communist (even though the system is still a communist one). Most of the countries that were sold over to the communists or simply left behind by closing eyes and thinking it's ok as long as you don't see it are still suffering or have suffered immensely. Evil has indeed prevailed in these countries and in some aspects still does. People get used to dictatorship, or don't but are forced to accept it. People can also be manipulated. I'm sure i don't have to remind you that nazism was not forced on Germany. If just before the second world war you were to walk through Berlin you would have encountered the mentality that lead to the war in the first place. Jews had money and power, Germans were being fired (not by jews mind you), and through the manipulation of nazism, they saw fit to direct their anger against a certain category of people. That was not evil due to the actions but due to the way that the people were manipulated. Sure, it was their decision, but everything was so smooth and thought of, that the decision was more of a simulacrum. It's true that Hitler acted foolishly...stupidly....he accomplished something great (uniting a country towards one goal), but then simply forgot about the possibility of loss. Stalin offered Germany victory, and thus victory for themselves. they refused, so Stalin found victory with the Allies. He played FDR like a puppet and manipulated Churchill to such an extent that he actually considered the russian leader his friend. Stalin made mistakes, but was indeed a strong evil leader. And if you don't consider communism or what he did evil, then you should talk to some people that actually lived through it. America always was (in my opinion) (and i am now speaking of the populace) a beacon of good or neutrality, but mainly of good. Things that happened behind the Iron Curtain were kept secret from the populace, from fear of reppercussion. Evil and Good both won in the Second World War, and maybe if Good hadn't made some mistakes, Evil would have won much much less. I also have to write this down, since i think that it would be unfair to refrain myself from it: During the conventions after the Second World War, one of the most important (if not THE most important) being the one at Yalta, Roosevelt (that at that time was too sick to even read the things he was just barely signing) and Churchill (that was in pain as well as his personal doctor Lord Mornay says in his book) accept giving Stalin COMPLETE control of the eastern part of Europe, and China. When Eisenhower (a man i respect indeed) comes to power, he has the opportunity to declare the aforementioned pacts and decisions wrong and ignore them (thus doing just what Stalin feared most aka, not being manipulated). What does he decide to do? He decides to "proclaim a week of praires every year for the people stuck behind the Iron Curtain". Had the American people been told what was going on, had they known the horrors of communism, i doubt the ones leading America would have stopped before reaching Moscow. Thusly, i consider that Evil won much more than it should have. That was (in my opinion) a result of intelligence, combined with knowledge of human psichology and the weakness of certain leaders. The conclusion is that in real life, Evil can win on large scales, as well as on the smaller scale, as was said concerning the rate of crime cases not solved. When i picture evil, i can picture a backstabber, a traitor, a murderer, a rapist, an influential stock owner, a drug dealer, and so on and so forth. When i picture good, i have more trouble finding so many types of good, because as was said earlier, good has less to chose from. However, the purpose of my post was to show that in real life, eviL DOES indeed win more often than is known by the majority of people. And i hope that in the future, this will be shown and the mentality of those that write books/scripts/stories even, will change, showing this.
Vaypah 08-16-04, 07:35 AM	Preacher, you are a sick and disturbed individual. You make a good point, but you are still a sick and disturbed individual. (Of course, I already knew that :D ).
hiryuu 08-16-04, 07:47 AM	Originally posted by a18ffe Is it really people from 'american culture' that likes good guys to win? I don't think so. I do think it makes a more interesting story. There is an anime called, 'Winds of Nausica' (I think...). I recommend it if you like anti-fairytales. Have you ever played in a campaign where the bad guys always win? It gets very fustrating when you are always outclassed and out-resourced. Eventually, your decisions start to be more grey in nature. This'd be "Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind." Read the manga. The ending is...well, ambiguous, to say the least. Nausicaa must choose whether to save her people and destroy humanity, or destroy her people and save humanity, but possibly destroy her world. Tough decision.
preacher of nothing 08-16-04, 08:14 AM	Thank you vaypah :twitch:
Watchman 08-16-04, 08:29 AM	The problem with "evil" is that while it is often rather succesful on the short term at least it tends to be ultimately contrafinal and self-defeating. Others may be quite willing to tolerate nasty folks around if they can make a profit out of it, or just consider it not to be worth the trouble to do something about it, but once the "evil" in question stops being useful it tends to find itself without friends. Case in point, Saddam and the US used to be good pals as long as the latter needed someone to keep Iran busy. Heck, I hear Israel used to support Hamas as a counter to the PLO until quite recently... "Evil" also tends to end up in "turf wars" with others, often unnecessarily - for negotiation and compromise would quite often result in at least as good results with less risk and expenses. That, however, is something "evil" factions have always been poor at - Stalin would have been quite happy to coexist with Nazi Germany, but Hitler had other ideas and we all know where that led him. Two or more "evil" groups whose operations and areas of interest overlap are particularly prone to mutual violence, though there are from time to time attemps to limit this (competing syndicates agreeing to a certain "division of territory" to avoid conflict, for example). This is something outsiders can and quite often do use to their advantage. More problematically "evil" groups, by their very immorality, tend to be internally fractured with many subgroups and cliques vying for influence and power, often resulting in very much pointless and wasteful bloodletting and debilating scheming. And God forbid their adminstrations tend to be corrupt to the core and prone to inefficiency, sloth, incompetence and quite enormous "running costs"... This also tends to result in high degree of often quite deserved but sometimes also self-fulfilling distrust inside the organization, constant surveillance of underlings etc. which both tends to deplete the pool of skilled personnel available and can result in defection and betrayal should a reasonable opportunity present itself.
Egres 08-16-04, 08:42 AM	Originally posted by Watchman Two or more "evil" groups whose operations and areas of interest overlap are particularly prone to mutual violence, though there are from time to time attemps to limit this (competing syndicates agreeing to a certain "division of territory" to avoid conflict, for example). This is something outsiders can and quite often do use to their advantage. More problematically "evil" groups, by their very immorality, tend to be internally fractured with many subgroups and cliques vying for influence and power, often resulting in very much pointless and wasteful bloodletting and debilating scheming. And God forbid their adminstrations tend to be corrupt to the core and prone to inefficiency, sloth, incompetence and quite enormous "running costs"... This also tends to result in high degree of often quite deserved but sometimes also self-fulfilling distrust inside the organization, constant surveillance of underlings etc. which both tends to deplete the pool of skilled personnel available and can result in defection and betrayal should a reasonable opportunity present itself. Note that you can substitute that "evil" with "good" without changing the post value.;)
Watchman 08-16-04, 08:52 AM	Not really, assuming we're speaking of "actually good" and not just "claims to be good like everyone else for the sake of PR". There's the phenomenom called "democratic peace", for example; while liberal-democratic states may not be any more peaceful than those with different governement setups (just count how many wars the US has fought), they have a marked tendency of not fighting other democracies. It is theorized this owes due to the fact that by their very natures liberal-democratic societies are familiar with the ins and outs of making compromises and solving conflicts through negotiation, a familiarity which in particular military dictatorships tend to lack, and the influence of the popular opinion. And while there are many basically benign states with inefficient and corrupt adminstrations, there are also many whose bureaucracies run (relatively) smoothly and efficiently and virtually without corruption (such as the Nordic countries) - but "evil" states with efficient adminstrations are rare exceptions indeed. Nazi Germany may well have been the only notable one, though I can't vouch for pre-1945 Japan.
Frozen Diamond 08-16-04, 08:59 AM	Do not refer to real world politics/religion when discussing D&D on this board. It is not allowed.
Watchman 08-16-04, 09:05 AM	*sigh* Whatever. Are references to history allowed, or do we need to use clumsy and transparent euphemisms instead ?
Egres 08-16-04, 09:11 AM	Not really, assuming we're speaking of "actually good" and not just "claims to be good like everyone else for the sake of PR". Do you really know such examples of "good" governments/nations/ and so on......outside the Faerun?;)
preacher of nothing 08-16-04, 09:52 AM	Watchman, you're quite right. However, when i started the post i was reffering mostly to the lower scale evil, not one that encompasses political strategies or even dictatorships. This was only a result of debates on the thread. However, my previous post (the one in which i reffered to the second world war) contained such large scale information only as a means to prove the fact that evil does win in real life. What i was indeed reffering to when i began was a stereotypical idea, and whether it is correct or not. frozendiamond: I used this board for this thread simply because i think that what we are discussing can and should be used in gaming sessions, and i personally think it is an interesting talk that may actually help dm's and their understanding of what their BBEG or heroes should be like. The problem with "evil" is that while it is often rather succesful on the short term at least it tends to be ultimately contrafinal and self-defeating. Others may be quite willing to tolerate nasty folks around if they can make a profit out of it, or just consider it not to be worth the trouble to do something about it, but once the "evil" in question stops being useful it tends to find itself without friends. It's been discussed on this thread that evil wins, but that its victories are either short-lived or without much of an impact. Whilst this may indeed be true, i find that ONE victory of evil over good has much more of an impact on morale than ONE victory of good over evil. Think of Pearl Harbour and the consequences. Think of Vietnam. Think of what happened to the twin towers and the pentagon. The image of something unbreakable was shattered (again frozendiamond, these are only cases from RL that i use to emphasise upon something). Whilst in real life as well as in DnD life and in most stories and such good prevails, evil (again IMO) still lingers on and its effects are more devastating. I see true evil like a virus, something like HIV. It slowly slowly destroys the immunitory (or however you spell that) system, and although you may have constant victories over the illness, in the end there is one great victory. I like to translate this in DnD and story terms. Feed the good guys and those that love them so fuel. Let them win, let them win, but have some victories of your own. You see, i think that every victory that evil has leaves a deep scar that doesn't heal. It won't kill you, but it won't heal. And as time passes on, more and more scars gather until the body is covered in scars. From there on, there are only a few more steps till evil wins. keep the answers comin'
crazysamaritan 08-16-04, 11:30 AM	This time for quotes: "All it takes for evil to win is for good men to do nothing." "Anyone who proposes to do good must not expect people to roll stones out of his way, but must accept his lot calmly if they even roll a few more upon it." "There surely is in human nature an inherent propensity to extract all the good out of all the evil." "He who wishes to secure the good of others, has already secured his own." "Religions are many and diverse, but reason and goodness are one." "Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws." "But goodness alone is never enough. A hard cold wisdom is required, too, for goodness to accomplish good. Goodness without wisdom invariably accomplishes evil." That's enough for now. ;)
Egres 08-17-04, 05:30 AM	...for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth Genesis 8,21
preacher of nothing 08-17-04, 11:02 AM	I'm actually curious right now as to how many of you out there would personally preffer the evil character over the good one. You see, in a movie like Hannibal, or like Seven, or in a book that details the life of a serial killer always hunted by the police and never caught, or even in a game where the lich or the mind flayer begins to toy with people, to bend them to their will, to kill innocents just for the science or fun of it, or simply because they can, i would always hope that the bad guy wins....how about you?
Egres 08-17-04, 01:14 PM	Originally posted by Vaypah Preacher, you are a sick and disturbed individual.
preacher of nothing 08-17-04, 01:39 PM	:P thanks....i take it that's your personal opinion egres :)
Cyincal Imp 08-17-04, 03:46 PM	Firstly, sorry about the length of my little essay here. I've discussed this before with people and I think my observation is a good one. I think Preacher Of Nothing is making the right kind of point here. Evil characters are far more memorable and interesting. All those DMs that read this: cast your minds back to previous campaigns you've hosted... it's always the bad guys you recall best. That's the case with me anyway. I can remember the baddies from rpgs I hosted when I was twelve, but goodies from campaigns I hosted in college last year I can't remeber in the slightest - aside from the stereotypical features tied to all the 'forces of good'. I think I know why. It's not the evil we admire in these characters... though we may find it quirky (like Hannibal Lecter), but that's not the most important dimensiont o this. I think it's more their ability to strive out in accomplishing their ambitions. Think about it: most villains are trying to gain something amazing - rulership, magical powers, wealth, the pleasure of vengeance. They form a plan and act it out. Most good guys are only defending what they already have. They're rarely better off at the end of the film/book/game then they were at the start. That's why Hollywood nearly always throws in romantic subplots, to make the good guy's efforts seem like a better accomplishment. Of course, stopping dark lords from destroying your hobbit-hole is not a pointless task, but it doesn't provoke appreciation other than the acknowledgement of bravery. We would all defend what we love so long as our bravery holds out. There aren't that many examples of goodies who actually want something more. Arguably a 'goody', Alexander the Great would be an apt reference historically - he beat the Persians (seen as the baddies by the greeks), and decided also to conquer the known world. Bilbo Baggins for me, is more interesting than Frodo, in that his motivation in 'The Hobbit' is a load of dragon treasure. Not as brave as Frodo, but more interesting. If any of you have played through 'Deus Ex' you'll know the lead character gets the chance for some serious personal gain come the concluding missions. And everybody I know who has played that thinks he's very cool. My conclusion: we admire characters who set out to accomplish something for themselves, something that other people wouldn't have the mindset to strive for. The problem is, in most literature, it's only the baddies that do this. Goodies that only defend what they already have aren't all that amazing. Brave: yes, interesting: rarely.
Gedrin 08-17-04, 03:49 PM	Nope. I cheer for the heroic and noble. Generally, I find little inspiring in the works of the villains. In spite of whatever admirable traits a villain may possess; strength, cunning, determination, I still prefer the good guy (who usually has his/her own strengths). I'm drawn more toward the just and good application of strength, in whatever magnitude, rather than the application of large ammounts of power (of whatever sort of power you care to describe).
Gedrin 08-17-04, 03:59 PM	In response to Imp... What kind of game worlds do you have that the good guys aren't advancing their own agenda? If the good guys aren't actually doing anything, yeh, that'd make them dull. I'd also note that sitting on your rear in the face of grave injustice isn't all that good. Good guys should have agendas of their own, things they want and want acomplished. If all the good guys you see in your games are without goals of their own, sure the evil forces are more interesting...you've spent your design efforts defining your good guys relative to the evil guys. I can see how a movies do this very thing, simply because they focus on one plot, usually the plot of the bad guy. They don't make movies too often about the forces of good going out to acomplish their goals. Sure, if all the good guys are defined by their opposition to the goals of bad guys, they'll appear dull by comparison.
Cyincal Imp 08-17-04, 04:06 PM	My point was more about what we find interesting. I'm not afraid to acknowledge that factions outside of my loyalty can be more interesting than those I support. I'm basically saying that someone like Riddick is more interesting than someone like Aragorn... although like you, I'd cheer for Aragorn in terms of solid, moral acknowledgement. But Riddick's more interesting for the reasons I described.
Cyincal Imp 08-17-04, 04:14 PM	My game worlds are ambigiously aligned, like Planescape Torment if you've ever played that. So players spend most of their time pursuing their own advancement. I'm arguing that we don't see enough of this in films and other media - ie. we only see goodies doing boring things like defending their homeland. Therefore, a perception exists to the effect of: "good guys are dumb and bad guys are smart." Or as I see it, "good guys are dull and bad guys are interesting".
Gedrin 08-17-04, 04:22 PM	I think it's questionable that Riddick's actions, on the most part, in the movie are evil. Didn't want to fight in the first place. Loyalty to friends. I would say that it's more likely Riddick is interesting because he's different than traditional heroic figures, not because he's "evil". Aragorn is a very traditional figure. We know what we get with "the noble exiled heir to the throne returns". Murderer-come-savior is a different idea, and we have fewer firm expectations of the character.
Gedrin 08-17-04, 04:35 PM	One of the reasons we don't see a lot of "good guys on the march" is that it's a lot easier to portray good in the defensive. Agressive action isn't something we normally identify with the good guys, but righting an obvious wrong, that's real clear. Much easier to have your hero clearly in the right if he's preventing a great evil, or taking back what's rightfully his. I'm sure we can all think of cases where good guys have gone out to do good things, and even if they did acomplish good things, motives and methods are questioned. Those questions aren't as loud when it's clear that you're avenging grave injustice or otherwise responding to agressive evil. Agressive good is much more complex to understand and deal with. It's also a much finer line to walk. Of course, at this point, we begin to veer off into all sorts of discussions about intent, result and the implications of choice (eventually)...not really directly relevant to "evil r smart, good r dumb"
Cyincal Imp 08-17-04, 04:54 PM	Very well articulated. In most sports (in fact, every sport I can think of) agressive, offensive play is more interesting to behold than defensive. If you look at something like '24', Jack Bauer is a very agressive kind of individual; and I think that's why he is such a popular character. And you're right: the offensive roles are more often granted to baddies. Anyway. Thanks for the discussion. I'm going to save the "Is there actually such thing as good and evil?" for another time.
Egres 08-17-04, 06:03 PM	Originally posted by Cyincal Imp Anyway. Thanks for the discussion. I'm going to save the "Is there actually such thing as good and evil?" for another time. For all of you that could be interested about this topic,take a look here. (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=277476)
preacher of nothing 08-18-04, 01:57 AM	I think that cynical imp makes a very good point. To us (the not so mediocre part of the populace), the bad guys are much more interesting. I for one, fully accomplish that in a story/adventure where the usual hook is "A great evil has emmerged", the good guys set out, but it's not the good guy's history you want to know. You don't care about how the good guy grew up, you don't want to know what makes them good, you want to know what makes the bad guy evil. you want to know what drives them and what feeds them power, be it real or only in their minds. The reason why we don't care about the good guy and his history is probably because it's a boring thing "My dad used to be a cop" "I want to help and bring justice to all" "I saw a man kill a woman...i have to sto pthings like that" "I saw how evil can destroy people" boring....at least to me. Evil on the other hand....now there's something for your imagination. Was he born evil or did he become evil? Why? When? How? Where? What's his history? I may be countered with the idea that the only reason we're interested is because the good guys need all the info they can get in order to defeat evil. But i somehow doubt that. thanks for the replies and keep em comin'
Egres 08-18-04, 03:44 AM	To us (the not so mediocre part of the populace), Modest!
preacher of nothing 08-18-04, 08:50 AM	heheh....thanks egres...i'm making fans :devil:
diamondjack 08-19-04, 04:53 AM	you guys are mostly just listing examples of certain good or evil characters. I like what tolkien said on the subject. everything else being equal, evil has ambition on their side. people assume ambitious people are intelligent only because those around them react in a more passive manner towards them. what good has on its side is intelligence and creativity. everything else being equal, the victorious person will be the one who can look at things through the enemys viewpoint. good people can conceive of what it would be like to be evil, but evil has no concept of the good mind. they can only conceive of people doing good deeds for some ulterior motive like they would. their nature will not allow them to see this any other way. thats why sauron could not even conceive of someone finding his ring and actually destroying it. he could only believe that they would try to use it against him in a struggle for power.sauron may have been very intelligent but it is this intellectual blind spot that will defeat evil time and time again.
preacher of nothing 08-19-04, 06:08 AM	You make a valid point DiamondJack, but this was not really about if intelligence is or isn't the weak spot of the villain. I mean, sure it has been discussed that evil will be destroyed by x, y and z. But i still ask my initial question: Is it true that evil is intelligent while good isn't?
Egres 08-19-04, 01:38 PM	Is it true that evil is intelligent while good isn't? In RL? No. Look at Socrates. In literature? No. Look at Sherlock Holmes,Poirot and others.
Drachasor 08-19-04, 02:17 PM	Originally posted by preacher of nothing You make a valid point DiamondJack, but this was not really about if intelligence is or isn't the weak spot of the villain. I mean, sure it has been discussed that evil will be destroyed by x, y and z. But i still ask my initial question: Is it true that evil is intelligent while good isn't? I don't see how in games, real life, or general fiction it could seriously be believed that good can't be intelligent, or that evil can't be stupid. There are even intelligent action heroes (Bond, Ripley, etc). -Drachasor
preacher of nothing 08-19-04, 02:37 PM	i meant more as a stereotype than an actual fact. If in RL good were stupid and evil intelligent, crime would be unstoppable. I meant that in games as well as writings, evil is most often indeed associated with intelligence while good with luck or simple brute strength.
crazysamaritan 08-19-04, 02:41 PM	I understand where you're coming from, PoN, give me a bit, and I'll share one of my early DnD characters... (gotta get off comp soon, so I can't write it down now. :(
preacher of nothing 08-19-04, 02:49 PM	i'll be waiting right here crazysamaritan
Cornholio 08-19-04, 05:56 PM	This has always been a big point of contention for me. I see a lot of modern fantasy stuff DOES make evil far too smart and good far too stupid. I have my own approach that I think makes for much more fun campaigns. The main problem which always gets on my nerves is the notion that the good guys are always the big tough warriors and the bad guys have to use stealth and treachery to win. Whenever I DM, I totally turn this notion on its ear. The way I see it, evil LIKES to use brute force and violence to get what it wants. When you just go into a straight up toe to toe slugfest, you're playing on evils terms. I tend to think that overt, agressive violence is evil; thus, instead of the usual DnD thing of having a good war god, a neutral war god and an evil war god, whenever I do homebrew I just make all war gods evil. Sorry guys, but if you're worshipping war, the most destructive and wasteful thing in existance, you're worshipping evil. Thus, EVIL is the one who tends to have the upper hand militarily, not good. This is how most DnD games tick me off; they assume that the whole world is naturally run by good guys, and evil guys are just random deviants. The way I play it, evil guys tend to have a LOT of power in the world, and they're more than willing to use brute force to crush their enemies. A good example of this is Star Wars. I loved star wars. The heroes were outgunned, outnumbered and outmatched, but by (gasp) BEING INTELLIGENT (and by being heroic of course) they manage to defeat the Empire. This is the way I do things. I think it is much more fun for the heroes this way. Its very frustrating to fight a foe who hides and picks away at you, and will never let you draw them into a stand up fight. The way I do it, the good guys COULD easily draw evil into a stand up fight, but if they did they would lose badly. Evil has the upper hand, and the good guys often need to use stealth, trickery and intelligence to win.
crazysamaritan 08-19-04, 06:29 PM	A cleric of the dark, who worships the Hidden Secrets of the world. He remains cloaked in darkness, hiding from sight, and moving as softly as the shadow. His domain of War, instinct of battle, focused in the Longsword, a symbol of the four alignments, and the length good must go to defeat evil. The domain of Trickery is also mastered by him. Trickery, to show that what is hidden is not there, what is close is far away, and what is seen is not real. It blends with war, the two complementing each other, as he makes war in the dark of night. The evil wizards.fighters. and gods that seek to strike from the dark find a war brewing on their flank. By the time they turn it is too late, he runs them through on his sword, and ends their regin of terror. Killing is evil, he knows. Therefore, he is evil. No paladin agrees, but he is steadfast in his faith. Were spells so difficult to fool, why would he have the power he does? He IS evil. This is based on his actions. He kills people quickly, he tortures for information, and he never lets another go unpunished. Ceaseless in his violence, he is determined to destroy all evil in the world. What he waits for most of all, is not forgiveness for his sins, for he knows he has done too much. Too much death has followed him, and he brings it everywhere he goes. He waits for one who shall kill him. A person of pure enough heart that they will end his reign of horror. HE waits for his death, for in the eyes of goodness, he is already dead, consumed by the evil he hunts. Basically, another of the 'Turn myself into a monster, to fight the monsters of the world.'
preacher of nothing 08-20-04, 03:24 AM	Basically, another of the 'Turn myself into a monster, to fight the monsters of the world.' i'm getting to see more and more of those ad truthfully, it's not that bad.
Archangel 08-20-04, 03:45 AM	Actually a good example of stupid evil is just around the corner in a great work of fantasy, called you guessed right Lord of the Rings. Sauron, the great evil can only be destroyed in one way, by throwing his ring into the fires of Mount Doom. And what does he do: he let's two hobbits by his armies, though his land and by his sight to get to that mountain unchallenged. If he had 10 Int he would have put some guards at that mountain, a whole camp if needed. Classic case of Stupid Evil! It is like a Lich that leaves his Phylactery in the wide open unguarded.
preacher of nothing 08-20-04, 09:42 AM	Good example, although i haven't read the books, so i'm not really sure if the movies were correct. I never trust hollywood to do that. They take a book and make it more...likeable. And since i haven't read the books, for all i know, he might have....maybe there's a LOTR reader out there that can help us
crazysamaritan 08-20-04, 11:45 AM	Honestly, IMO, the movie is very accurate. Not everything is btb, however, it is the BEST conversion from book to movie I have ever seen. The reason Sauron didn't guard to mountain is: It's a POWERFUL ring. Why would anyone destroy it? They want to use it on him, that's it!!! They're going to try to destroy him! That's why Gandalf, the King, and all those other goody-goodies are coming to the black gate!!!
preacher of nothing 08-20-04, 11:58 AM	I belive it can be considered simple logics when Sauron thought that. Having known of Isildur that actually reached Mount Doom and turned down...how could a hobbit do it? Lack of information, not stupidity. Or so i think.
Thuragrun 08-20-04, 12:16 PM	I just skimmed over all 99 replies, not going to read them all. If the header was correct, then the world would be ruled by dictatorships and in a constant state of war. We are in the most peaceful state the world has ever experienced, this whole topic was covered in my philosophy class just this past monday and tuesday. Believe it or not, 99% of all politicians and leaders are good people at heart. "Bad" people are not smarter, they tend to have much less education than "good" people. Not that education equals intelligence, some of the dumbest people I know have PhDs. Bush and Kerry are both "good" men, they just have different views on the world. While I would chose Bush as president, I do not see Kerry as evil, just misguided. Good people will always rule the world because the nature of man is "good". One problem with good and evil is that it is subjective. I am sure even Hitler or Stalin thought they were doing what was best for thier people. P.S. I hate the overuse of alignment in D&D anyway. Ah, Eberron is a breath of fresh air, isnt it?
Raymond_Luxury_Yacht 08-20-04, 03:15 PM	Originally posted by Grox The first man who ever hijacked an airliner, who actually parachuted out of it in order to escape with a bag of money, certainly got alive with his booty. OT, but something that I feel the need to respond to. Contrary to popular belief, Dan Cooper almost certainly did not get away alive. He parachuted out into subzero weather, miles away from civilization, with no protection against the elements and no food. Also, some of the banknotes that he stole were dredged up from a river near where he jumped out, several years after his hijacking attempt. The logical assumption is that he died somewhere out in the wilderness.
Egres 08-20-04, 03:38 PM	Originally posted by Thuragrun Believe it or not, 99% of all politicians and leaders are good people at heart. "Bad" people are not smarter, they tend to have much less education than "good" people. Are you making fun of us?:confused:
crazysamaritan 08-20-04, 03:48 PM	Originally posted by Thuragrun Good people will always rule the world because the nature of man is "good". THAT'S debatable. My personal opinion is that the nature of mankind is stupid. I've told many people: I wouldn't be too surprised if we did have a nuclear war, with the express purpose of killing everyone in the world. The scary thing isn't the chance of succeding, but that we would fail....
TheDarkestOfAngels 08-20-04, 04:15 PM	Heh. In theory, Communism works. Communism's basic assumption is that the nature of humankind is good and that people are generally good in what they do. Communism failed because the high-ups were corrupt and everyone else didn't have anything to work for. You had your quotas and you had to meet them, whether your product was crappy or quality. Capitalist/Democracy as we know it assume that the nature of humankind is evil. The very construction of democracy doesn't allow anyone to achieve so much power as to achieve total dominance (checks and balances and all) in power over the other. The workforce gets, by and large, rewarded for quality work and can likewise advance (essentially, the "american dream.") While no country I Know of uses a pure form of either system, the one that assumes that we, by and large, are evil is the one that's working the best right now. Personally, I don't think the very nature of humans is evil or stupid, just ignorant.
crazysamaritan 08-20-04, 04:37 PM	I see there's another Heinlien fan ;) Originally posted by TheDarkestOfAngels While no country I Know of uses a pure form of either system, the one that assumes that we, by and large, are evil is the one that's working the best right now. Personally, I don't think the very nature of humans is evil or stupid, just ignorant. I think people are ignorant because they don't care. Intential ignorance is stupidity. Again, that's IMO. Feel free to disagree, we won't go very far when the argument is between opinion and opinions ;)
Thuragrun 08-20-04, 05:20 PM	Originally posted by TheDarkestOfAngels Heh. In theory, Communism works. Communism's basic assumption is that the nature of humankind is good and that people are generally good in what they do. Communism failed because the high-ups were corrupt and everyone else didn't have anything to work for. You had your quotas and you had to meet them, whether your product was crappy or quality. Capitalist/Democracy as we know it assume that the nature of humankind is evil. The very construction of democracy doesn't allow anyone to achieve so much power as to achieve total dominance (checks and balances and all) in power over the other. The workforce gets, by and large, rewarded for quality work and can likewise advance (essentially, the "american dream.") While no country I Know of uses a pure form of either system, the one that assumes that we, by and large, are evil is the one that's working the best right now. Personally, I don't think the very nature of humans is evil or stupid, just ignorant. In theory, communism is the best form of govenment there is. In practice is a whole other story. It works great for small groups or large groups where all pull their weight or are highly disciplined. But it is far more prone to corruption than any other form of government, as you can see in all current and past users. Even the military and the church is sort of a communistic group( I would never call the military corrupt but the church, oh yeah, this coming from a practicing catholic!). I wouldnt say capitalism/democracy assumes men are evil. It assumes we are faulted, and it is right. I would call it the most honest form of government. Our problems (in the US) are almost always out in the open for all to see. At least in our system, the truth comes our eventually. Our system also assumes all will pull their own weight, but we know that is not true. This is a major flaw, not with the system, but with the people who rely on others to support them. These are the ignorant in our society. Regardless of what the assumptions are, I still stand by my opinion that 99% of people are good, even the ignorant. Besides, isnt it easier to be kind to others than mean? I am too lazy to be mean, it sounds like work to me. I do enough work at work.
Drasche 08-20-04, 05:30 PM	Before I go on with my rant, I believe the answer to your question is that that stereotype exists to appease the common man in society, which unfortunately doesn't challenge him to become smarter, or stronger, or better, but to languish in his complacency. At least, that's how I see it. Originally posted by Cornholio Sorry guys, but if you're worshipping war, the most destructive and wasteful thing in existance, you're worshipping evil. Thus, EVIL is the one who tends to have the upper hand militarily, not good. Says who? War is only destructive in the sense that physical objects are destroyed. But WWII helped to bring America out of its depressed economy by supplying countless factory jobs across the country. Business and War go hand-in-hand. Also, without conflict, do you honestly think such technological innovations (such as the graduations in metal - copper, iron, steel) would have made the leaps it has? Once, it was a matter of survival. Only in the past few decades has the desire for advancement been driven by societal betterment over survival*. And why would Evil have the upper-hand militarily speaking (unless that's just your campaign, then nevermind)? Likewise, what's the issue with saying that "Evil" is driving the conflict? Over on the Magic Boards there have been knock-down, drag-out fights over whether White is Good and Black is Evil. Now, without going into it all, there is strong evidence that White is not necessarily Good. Therefore, who's to say that Evil is picking all the fights? I like intrigue, political gerrymandering by the supposed "Good guys" causing injustice (but with good intentions), imposing laws that may negatively impact one race or another, etc. It keeps things interesting. And honest. Good isn't perfect, and, as we all know, is rather subjective. Moving along, one rather important piece of information has been bypassed. The statement about "Evil" organizations not lasting because of internal corruption is terribly clichéd. Not everyone has the ambition for power or position. Sometimes it's enough to prove over one person or a group of people your superiority. For example, let's say I'm the BBEG. My charisma (I wish) attacts several people who are strong in their respective fields. Now, they won't necessarily want complete control for themselves. The uber-genius may just want a lab and access to whatever he wants/needs for his work. The military specialist wouldn't want to run the entire organization. He just wants control over the troops, because that's what he was trained to do. The tactician/logistics expert will have more than enough to do outside of war-time situations. Lawful X can be highly intelligent. If organized wisely and efficiently, only ridiculous luck or overall superiority should win over it. I personally hate Chaotic Stupid characters, because it leaves no room for imagination (in my opinion). Brute force can be stopped by ingenuity, intelligence can be neutralized by removing the source. Of course, it is more fun to overpower an adversary using their strengths as your own - essentially, beating them at their own game. *This is not to say that societal betterment wasn't there in the beginning, but it hadn't taken precedant until just recently.
crazysamaritan 08-20-04, 05:38 PM	Originally posted by Thuragrun Even the military and the church is sort of a communistic group( I would never call the military corrupt but the church, oh yeah, this coming from a practicing catholic!).Nah, both are more of a dictatorship. Communism assumes equality, but the military has a strict heirarchy. The Catholic church has one too, but a lot more layity. I wouldnt say capitalism/democracy assumes men are evil. <snip> Our system also assumes all will pull their own weight, but we know that is not true. This is a major flaw, not with the system, but with the people who rely on others to support them. These are the ignorant in our society. Ummm, the last sentance makes no sense to me.... As to the rest of it, Capitalism/Democracy assume that you are doing what is best for yourself. This is an evil trait. The opposite is good that assumes everyone will work for the good of others. That's what communism is based on. Regardless of what the assumptions are, I still stand by my opinion that 99% of people are good, even the ignorant. Besides, isnt it easier to be kind to others than mean? I am too lazy to be mean, it sounds like work to me. I do enough work at work. That's Neutral
Thuragrun 08-20-04, 06:02 PM	Nah, both are more of a dictatorship. Communism assumes equality, but the military has a strict heirarchy. The Catholic church has one too, but a lot more layity. I am using the theoretical form of communism as a basis. In large groups, communism needs to have a leader, this is where the corruption comes in. In communism, you have your place, just as in the church and the military. Ummm, the last sentance makes no sense to me.... As to the rest of it, Capitalism/Democracy assume that you are doing what is best for yourself. This is an evil trait. The opposite is good that assumes everyone will work for the good of others. That's what communism is based on. Sorry, my political beliefs are infusing the arguement, this had no purpose here. But I disagree that doing the best for yourself and your family is evil. Bettering yourself on the backs of others is evil(corruption), but how am I evil if I bust my hump to educate myself, paying my own tuition. I do not leech off of the government to pay for school. I am eligible for grants but will not use them. I have earned scholarships and taken loans. I will be starting to pay those loans back next year. By doing what is best for me, I am doing what is best for my kids, who in turn, god willing, will do the same. Maybe I will even be able to pay for thier education all by myself. I see nothing evil here. Evil is forcing hard working people to pay for what you (not literally you) have not earned. A good place in the world is not a right, it is a privilege. And I intend to earn mine. That's Neutral I was being silly. I am far from lazy. I would never hurt anyone unless given good reason.
crazysamaritan 08-20-04, 06:22 PM	Originally posted by Thuragrun I am using the theoretical form of communism as a basis. In large groups, communism needs to have a leader, this is where the corruption comes in. In communism, you have your place, just as in the church and the military. Not having much knowledge in any of the specific areas, what I do know is that the ideal of communism says that noone is more important than any other person. In the military, I am a PFC, going by the book, I must sacrifice myself for any higher-ranking individual. Fortunetly, there's enough good people, that it's not all by the book. Sorry, my political beliefs are infusing the arguement, this had no purpose here. This (currently) is an argument based entirely on perception, therefore, it has merit. I am glad you have a healthy self-esteem, for that is what your argument shows. It is an extreme interpretation of evil that says trying to improve yourself, before attempting to help another, is evil. Just as it is an extreme interpretation of good that says you must care for others more than you care for yourself. A certain amount of self-respect or looking out for number one is needed for a a truely good person. I was being silly. I am far from lazy. I would never hurt anyone unless given good reason. Again, Neutral. j/k then it depends on what you consider good reason. However, this is nature/nurture argument. If you were neutral, and raised in a good enviroment, you will find it easiest to do good, but it's not going to be an extreme action. More of a "I'm too lazy to be evil".
Thuragrun 08-20-04, 06:48 PM	As a former E6, I would say it is I who needs to sacrifice myself for you. Just my style of NCOing combined with being a good 11B. You would have been be my responsibility. But none of this matters here. The interpretation that all are equal under communism only applies under its purest sense, and within small groups. Current communist regimes all have leaders and peons, there is no in between.They have mutated from communism to autocracies. In a purer communism, like the church, you may leave at any time. You may also leave the military, but only when you fulfill your contract. Everyone works for a common good in both cases. In a autocracy, you do what your told, or die. You may have to follow orders within the military, but not all orders are legal, and you can disobey an illegal order. Going to Vegas, now, will look this up in a week, wish me luck.
crazysamaritan 08-20-04, 06:58 PM	Originally posted by Thuragrun As a former E6, I would say it is I who needs to sacrifice myself for you. Just my style of NCOing combined with being a good 11B. You would have been be my responsibility. But none of this matters here. Again, good person. That's also how "being a leader" should be interpreted. Why do you say it's irrelevant? It's all off-topic. The interpretation that all are equal under communism only applies under its purest sense, and within small groups. Current communist regimes all have leaders and peons, there is no in between.They have mutated from communism to autocracies. In a purer communism, like the church, you may leave at any time. You may also leave the military, but only when you fulfill your contract. Everyone works for a common good in both cases. In a autocracy, you do what your told, or die. You may have to follow orders within the military, but not all orders are legal, and you can disobey an illegal order. The church; isn't that more of a layiety thing? As to autocraties, that's one way it's corrupted, IMO. Illegal orders: More like; you're punished if you do follow illegal orders. :nonono: btw, 56M :D Going to Vegas, now, will look this up in a week, wish me luck. :dice: :dice: :dice: <----Lucky dice :D
preacher of nothing 08-21-04, 06:39 AM	DOn't use the term loosely. There's a difference between socialism and communism.
Egres 08-21-04, 08:53 AM	Communism..Socialism...i can hear the WizOs coming.......
Drasche 08-21-04, 02:07 PM	Originally posted by Thuragrun Bettering yourself on the backs of others is evil(corruption). . . There's another term for this. It's "Ambition", which isn't such a bad thing.:D
preacher of nothing 08-21-04, 03:15 PM	Originally posted by Thuragrun Bettering yourself on the backs of others is evil(corruption). . . I can't see this as evil, and i can't see manipulation as something evil, unless it furthers your goals of harming someone, or it involves harming them in the proccess.
Remnant 08-21-04, 08:28 PM	You know, I haven't read the entire thread, but it occured to me that quite possibly the most basic expression of this thread is Wiley Cyote and Road Runner. Wiley creates ingenious, well thought out, trap. Road Runner does, over the next 5 seconds of the cartoon, 1 or more of the only three things he ever does- runs, eats, or does his "meep meep" routine. Wiley's plan fails miserably and inflicts great bodily injury upon him. Nothing very complicated- just smart, bad guy gets trashed by good guy that can do exactly 3 things.
preacher of nothing 08-22-04, 01:26 AM	yep, it's pretty common in cartoons as well. Just as Tom always loses to Jerry. Only thing is, Jerry is portrayed as intelligent as well. The bad guy always loses huh? :( But your example with wilie coyote and road runner was excellent
TheDarkestOfAngels 08-22-04, 02:36 AM	Another good example, actually is Trigun, as a classic good vs. evil thing. While Vash and Knives (love that name) were both incredibly intelligent, Vash always acted out of concience, belief, and his convictions. Knives acted coldly and logically. Though, they both had the same goal. For instance, Vash wants to save both the butterfly and the spider, but Knives saved the butterfly by killing the spider, citing that it would only be logical to save the butterfly in this fashion, because it would be cruel to the spider, that depends on eating the butterfly.
preacher of nothing 08-23-04, 02:03 AM	Nice example, but let me ask you this. Do you think that the good character usually is less intelligent or simply doesn't use logics to the extent that the evil one does? The evil character will always be more pragmatic, but the good one will actually do something chaotic, or just plain stupid CHAAAAAAAAARRRRRRGGGGEEEEE!!!!!!! or will he?????
preacher of nothing 08-23-04, 02:22 AM	double post
TheDarkestOfAngels 08-23-04, 03:30 AM	Originally posted by preacher of nothing Do you think that the good character usually is less intelligent or simply doesn't use logics to the extent that the evil one does? I think either can be true. Evil can be the one riding on conviction and belief (like someone that believes that god or jesus is telling them to kill people. Someone like Knives in trigun believed that he was superior and that humans were the spider that was trying to kill the butterfly, whom he felt was his bretheren.) Having just finished watching the series (purchased the entire series on DVD,) i guess I did kinda miss that point in my earlier post. Knives wasn't acting out of logic or cold calculation, but just a view of the world/opinion that differed from Vash's. In any case, to answer your question, I don't believe that, on average, evil is any more or less one way or the other. I believe the difference in that moral respect comes from how one views the sanctity of life. However, that does not explain the whole thing. For instance, it seems to be generally acknowledgeable that one that upholds the sanctity of life to be "good." One that destroys life is typically viewed to be evil. This is entirely with respect to life. Motivation also has a great deal to play in whether a person is good or not. For instance, it is good to uphold life to most ends, however, what if that end is to protect life as well? I think being "good" is actually much better defined that evil. In a campaign I recently started designing, the end of that campaign will actually bring the nature of good and evil, but mostly evil up. The BBEG is actually an ascended solar that has nearly reached overgod status, who annihilated Ao's former material plane before he created faerun. The solar went into hiding and eventually plans to annihilate Faerun and the rest of the cosmos. His motivation, however, is to save the rest of the omniverse from being totally wiped out, as Ao created Toril without express permission from the creator being (the mother of the omniverse) and it threw the entire omniverse, with its delicate balance, out of whack, which will lead to the annihilation of all that exists. Because he is aware of that, the Solar intends to balance the omniverse by committing genocide and wiping out Ao's bastard universe. Another side note, the solar never technically fell from grace (as it ascended to godhood well after it began committing itself to its plan. It is still a solar, although far more powerful. Evil and of itself simply tends to disregard the sanctity of life and I think that's its best definition, but I guess I'm just a person that only sees shades of grey. There certianly are clear-cut situations in which one outcome makes a person in that situation an evil person and one outcome that makes a person a good person, but there are so many factors that can change the picture. Other factors, such as motivation and effects that are beyond the situation itself. For instance, lets say a small villiage of people are being controlled by a gang of rabid bandits that are essentially intimidating the townsfolk into doing what they want them to do. Perhaps even harming the local populace. However, a town "hero" steps up and manages to drive them out. However, the bandits' trade was also keeping the city alive because of a local black market was keeping the economics of the town moving. Once the bandits were forced out, the local economy collapses and everyone becomes destitute. Where, in this situation is the "good?" Certainly what the town hero did was heroic and brave, and most definately a good act done out of goodwill to promote the sanctity of the townsfolk's lives, but in doing so, he had condemned this town to die -- possibly ruining the lives of everyone within that town. however, this situation is, by far, not a common one. But it does go to show just how much grey there is when all people want to see is black and white. Even when the black and white are clearly laid out, such a harsh definition can even be evil in and of itself, as what could be a "white" situation be accidently defined as a "black" one with tragic consequences. I don't know... maybe I'm just one of those people that can only see in (mostly) shades of grey. But I've also never noted an instance in which something was clearly defined as being an "evil" thing or a "good" thing, as, to repeat a (paraphrased) great quote, "The victor is always the one that writes the history books." I suppose that this will be something that can or will never be answered. Maybe that would be for the better. I don't know... The evil character will always be more pragmatic, but the good one will actually do something chaotic, or just plain stupid CHAAAAAAAAARRRRRRGGGGEEEEE!!!!!!! or will he????? Not every evil character is pragmatic or stupid or chaotic.
Archangel 08-23-04, 10:05 AM	In a campaign I recently started designing, the end of that campaign will actually bring the nature of good and evil, but mostly evil up. The BBEG is actually an ascended solar that has nearly reached overgod status, who annihilated Ao's former material plane before he created faerun. The solar went into hiding and eventually plans to annihilate Faerun and the rest of the cosmos. His motivation, however, is to save the rest of the omniverse from being totally wiped out, as Ao created Toril without express permission from the creator being (the mother of the omniverse) and it threw the entire omniverse, with its delicate balance, out of whack, which will lead to the annihilation of all that exists. Because he is aware of that, the Solar intends to balance the omniverse by committing genocide and wiping out Ao's bastard universe. Another side note, the solar never technically fell from grace (as it ascended to godhood well after it began committing itself to its plan. It is still a solar, although far more powerful. Evil and of itself simply tends to disregard the sanctity of life and I think that's its best definition, but I guess I'm just a person that only sees shades of grey. This depends from what side of the coin are you looking at things. For gods and the universe Torin could be as significant as an Ant hill. So if you destroyed an Ant hill to save Earth would you be Evil? For instance, lets say a small villiage of people are being controlled by a gang of rabid bandits that are essentially intimidating the townsfolk into doing what they want them to do. Perhaps even harming the local populace. However, a town "hero" steps up and manages to drive them out. However, the bandits' trade was also keeping the city alive because of a local black market was keeping the economics of the town moving. Once the bandits were forced out, the local economy collapses and everyone becomes destitute. Where, in this situation is the "good?" Certainly what the town hero did was heroic and brave, and most definately a good act done out of goodwill to promote the sanctity of the townsfolk's lives, but in doing so, he had condemned this town to die -- possibly ruining the lives of everyone within that town. This example is too simple. If you described it more in detail you should have mentioned that their is no way for the town populace to live solely by the black market if they didn't work for it. And if they did then they were evil and deserve what that hero's actions do to them!
Phist 08-31-04, 02:30 AM	Some movies where the bad guys won: Ocean's Eleven The Italian Job The Saint (this one is more ambiguous. He might have had an alignment shift toward the end) Many other crime movies. Evil is, almost by definition smarter, IMO. They will get ahead by whatever means are nessesary, whereas good is held up by morals, kindness and other sorts of foolishness. If everything else is equal, the evil path will end with more power, money, control, whatever.
TheDarkestOfAngels 08-31-04, 02:45 AM	This depends from what side of the coin are you looking at things. For gods and the universe Torin could be as significant as an Ant hill. So if you destroyed an Ant hill to save Earth would you be Evil? That depends, do you consider the lives of trillions upon untold trillions of lives "as significant as an anthill?" While the descision mostly comes from taking the route of the lesser of two evils, they're still both evil. (and may not be the only choices -- that's where the PCs come in.) But these are the only two choices that the BBEG saw that he had the power to do. In any case, he's still Lawful Good and he did not fall from grace and he does not like what he feels that he has to do. Just because he is a god, he was once an angel and he does feel for all life and he doesn't like what he feels that he's charged with doing. Just less wrong than the alternative. This example is too simple. If you described it more in detail you should have mentioned that their is no way for the town populace to live solely by the black market if they didn't work for it. And if they did then they were evil and deserve what that hero's actions do to them! I don't recall saying that the town lived solely on the black market. It just needs to be a large component. Like oil in Saudi Arabia or Drugs in Columbia. But a town run by a less than ledgitimate impliment that has constant access to illedgitimate business will still bring in money that contributes to the town's economy. Since this illedgitimate business is sanctioned in this hypothetical town, it brings in more business than it otherwise would. Taking it out can damage the fragile economy enough to destroy it, even if the inhabitants didn't like these illedgitimate practices.
MattD121 08-31-04, 09:02 AM	Like the BoED says, if you do something slightly evil to correct a major evil then yes, you do indeed lose Exalted status. But come on are a couple feats worth the lives of billions? In campaigns I DM if its worth losing your feats for, then you don't have to lose your feats doing them.
Iyestorm 08-31-04, 10:15 PM	It's already been said that Neutrality comes out the winner, right? Because Neutrality consists of people who don't know/don't care AND those who believe in balance i.e. the Daoists; who believe that evil only occurs when there is imbalance, and do not look at the issue as a "good vs evil" sort of thing. So as long as good and evil are fighting each other and neither side is winning by a large amount, Neutrality wins... ...but wait... that would mean Neutrality=Good. But if Neutrality=Good then there would be imbalance so Neutrality=Bad... but... hey, I think i answered my own question. Just my take on which side would win, even though i'm almost sure that's not what we're discussing ATM. disregarding that, I conclude that we, the human race, with our pitiful int scores of... whatever they be, are in no position to truely know what good and evil are. Not even our smartest, 18+ int score champions (Einstien, Hawking) were be able to know for sure. I profusely apologize for anything I said that might warrent an apology.
Cardinal Teplin 08-31-04, 11:00 PM	The main reason why evil people are betrayed as smart is because otherwise they wouldn't be much of a theat. Its harder to be sucessful as an evil doer because you have to guard against everyone turning against you, while a good person doesn't. Obviously this applied in a functional society - in an anarchic situation everyone is against you anyway, but its a very hard situation to credubly sustain.... So yes, evil people are shown as smart, because otherwise how would they be threat? No threat=no story. Of course, the other contribution, in films anyway, is the whole intellectual=evil connetation, that reached its peak with the mad science villain in the 1970s, but still persists today. Thrown in the whole class warfare theme, and of course it gets even worse. I'm not sure how Hollywood ever managed to get thugs with uzis in three peice suits as a stereotype, but it managed it. The standard idea is that heroism comes from inherent virtue, not acquired ability. So people give villains all the advantages, and heroes all the disadvantages, to emphasise the point. This is why villains tend to get huge lairs, wealth, loads of flunkies and so on, and why heroes are so often farmboys. Stack the odds, because that makes the struggle even more heroic. As a result of this, the tendancy is to make the villain as smart as possible (yet still fail) while the hero is often as dumb as possible, but smart when it counts.