[Essay] Resevoir Dogs: How to Play Evil

[Omega07]

People can perceive evil in a number of ways, Which makes the alignments awesome.

Some of the most scariest and evil characters are sometimes the ones that don't realise what they do are evil and simply do not have a moral code (Quoting Assassins as a class to pick out as they have no ethics for assassinations).

As CleverUsername touched based on, Goals are goals in the characters eyes and moral codes simply do not factor into it which in fact if you look at present day and future set films.. (One I will quote is Ex Machina, Very trippy movie. Worth a watch.) Characters in that perspective will use any tool available as they believe what they are obtaining is right in their eyes.

But not using everybody's words but as V'rass says: "Evil can join and help the good guys now and then, they are also just as likely to fight against the main villian as well." Consider the Lawful evil alignment which would abide by laws to obtain their desires, But adding that but they may eliminate competition which may arise in the future which is a double whammy really.

With that said, Playing the evil you like is the main thing, Evil by intrigue,Evil by selling dodgy potions or cursed wares, Evil by slaughtering thousands until you perish in a rainstorm of blood. Its all in good fun and everybody loves a villain!

[Vermilion]

Absolutely! One of my favourite evil NPCs in an RPG is the merchant at the start of Dragon Age Origins whose response to finding the refugees fleeing the darkspawn are starving is to raise his food prices. Supply and demand, right?

To support Vrass' point, that merchant will 100% want the darkspawn defeated - he's not going to benefit from having all that money if everyone is dead, but while an opportunity presents itself he's going to take advantage.

[DeepFriedMoose]

Everyone here has made very good points, and I thank you all for your contributions!

I don't want my essay to seem like I think anyone is doing anything wrong, though! I'm currently UD only, and I've seen a huge variety in character's, including some great Magnificent Bastards! The point of my little critique was only to broaden how people see the ways that evil characters can be portrayed, and that evil does not always mean menacing, mean-spirited, paranoid and distrustful.

Keep up the good evil work!

- DFM

[burbles]

Thanks for bringing attention to a great movie, I should rewatch it...
What I noticed: Evil is 'subjective' in a sense that as long as you have a shred of ego, you know what evil is! Good is not intellectual, it can't be reasoned out, you either know what's the right thing or you have conscience that's not clear enough. You know good through a natural religious sense - take that out and you have evil.

Overall, an interesting read, altough, when it comes to morality, and interesting read could be the "The Brothers Karamazov" from F.M.Dostoyevsky, and in that the "The Grand Inquisitor" part.

Nice one! The Grand Inquisitor is well worth reading and thinking over. One thing about russian classical literature is that it's almost always portrays protagonists who are in some way evil or wrong - because great russian writers tend to warn readers and show the society pitfalls to avoid.

Evil is rather nuanced, and should better be defined as a lack of pity or remorse

Evil is infinitely nuanced, just like a mind is, but those nuances are all lies that obscure the truth.

Orange is who I was talking about when I said: "doing the right thing for the wrong reasons". What I had actually meant to type was "Doing the wrong (evil) thing for the right reasons".

I like a distinction: "Ends justify the means" - is Evil, while "Means justify Ends (or goals/ambitions)" - is Good. So most 'good' people who think they are good because they have 'good' causes, regardless of means they take, are actualy evil.