Forums of the Megaverse®

Try reading books about Nazis and serial killers. That should provide plenty of real world examples of evil of the worst kind.

Also read up on the Kennedys, Clintons, and Nancy Pelosi of you want to know about Miscreant and Diabolic people.

easiest way is to empathize with the NPCs victims and then do the complete opposite of what your feelings tell you.

Example: Little old lady about to cross the street

Normal Person: they smile and maybe help the old broad across the busy intersection

Psycho/Evil Person: Notices the pearl necklace, smiles charmingly, leads her into traffic, grabs the pearls and pushes her into oncoming traffic.

see? easy. It's all about personal gratification while seeing everyone around you as unworthy of your attention or even life, they are to be used at your whim to satisfy your desires and impulses.

Cannot forget it is possible that an evil person never hurts another by himself. Instead he manipulates another person to make the evil work.

Think about Charles Manson after prison and after he moved his cult to Spahn's. Of course it was some personal violence that prove he was capable of being violent himself and put him in prison originally.

Evil people need the power over other people (either because they need to make revenge on people or they believe they deserve this power for some reason) - they suffer from the delusions and/or narcissism....to the extreme level. Anything they can do to make themself more powerful than the other, they will do.

There's also a more pure source of evil where the being simply enjoys the suffering of others.

If you can stomache them, spend some time watching the barrage of torture films being released as of late... one of the common themes is needless suffering when they could have just killed them off and be done with them.

A common theme with villains back in my Heroes Unlimited days was "You can only kill a man once... but you can break him many, MANY times!"

Also, never underestimate the value of shocking other characters with revealing how evil and horrifying the psycho villain is. If you have villain who's ambition is to watch the whole city burn around him in flames, laughing maniacally with tears in his eyes as he does so... make sure the players see it. Sometimes its not enough for them to see the horrible events, but the reactions of the psycho villain can be just as impactful.

Actually, the most dangerous kind of evil is smart, cunning and very very patient. Lex Luthor, Kingpin, and the like are good examples of this kind of evil. The "easy to combat" evil gets off on most of the examples given here but a true mastermind is always looking at the big picture, even doing the ocassional bit of good to deflect suspicion and preserve the greater plan.

demos606 wrote:Actually, the most dangerous kind of evil is smart, cunning and very very patient. Lex Luthor, Kingpin, and the like are good examples of this kind of evil. The "easy to combat" evil gets off on most of the examples given here but a true mastermind is always looking at the big picture, even doing the ocassional bit of good to deflect suspicion and preserve the greater plan.

Luthor is the good example of the narcissist who needs revenge for the abandonment in his early life and his inability to maintain the normal healthy relationships. He seeks the power to control people in the world and will fight with anybody who refuses to bend to his command. And this power of course must be immense if to defeat the superman.

demos606 wrote:Actually, the most dangerous kind of evil is smart, cunning and very very patient. Lex Luthor, Kingpin, and the like are good examples of this kind of evil. The "easy to combat" evil gets off on most of the examples given here but a true mastermind is always looking at the big picture, even doing the ocassional bit of good to deflect suspicion and preserve the greater plan.

Expanding on that a bit more in that they still do "good deeds" occasionally.

One of the oddest and more frightening aspects of a mastermind is that like everyone else, they believe they are doing the right thing in some shape or form. The mastermind might initiate a charity function for cancer and invite the entire upper social circle to come and help out.

Yet during that action, said mind invites one of the big spenders somewhere private and kill him in cold blood. the reason? He's a competitor of one of the many assetts the mastermind whats his greedy hands on. In our mind its a very selfish and evil act killing a good samaritan who didnt deserve it, but in the master's mind, were not looking at the big picture and were not looking at things from the right perspective, what he would have done with this assett would have cost jobs and ways of life or the enviornment... all things that effect him somehow, yet his mind spins it as it was for the people, not himself.

seven wrote:thanks guys, i've been looking at different villains and not getting very far. i tried acting/speaking for a deranged skitso and i just didn't work. and looking at all my planned villains, have some very cool dirty plans, but i realized i just can put my mind to it. but i will keep what was said in mind this saturday when we game and see where it takes me.

Psychotic is one thing.

If you want to understand about EVIL, though, I highly suggest you read the book Walpurgis III by Mike Resnick.
The three main characters have been described as "one is evil, another does evil deeds, and another worships evil", or something to that effect.

I could give a longer summary, but in the end just trust me: read this book.
It's a light, quick, and thought-provoking story.

Plus, it has a large number of wonderful quotes like:
"If blood were green, then green would be my favorite color."
"Of course all men have souls, otherwise I'd spend my time torturing animals."
"One need not hate what one kills."
And so on.

Someone, probably on a forum somewhere, equated being evil with being drunk. (If you are reading this, please let me know.)

If you are sober, you are aware of your actions.
If you are slightly drunk, you know you are drunk and not in full control.
If you are very drunk, you insist you are fine.

A good person knows the difference between right and wrong, and polices himself very well.
A somewhat evil (i.e. Selfish alignment) person knows he's not the best guy in the world.
A totally evil person generally can come up with lots of reasons why he does what he does. Why his actions were totally justified, and in fact, the only thing he could do. No one wants to think of themselves as evil, after all. In fact, the whole Aberrant alignment is built around people who do this.
A true psychopath might be the exception to this, since he wouldn't care about good and evil at all. But psychopaths are rare, unless your game has lots of demons or other supernatural evils.

Brian

Look at the alignments

(assuming you are a good natured person)-think about teh world that ou hate, the things you wish would change, the people that you wish were no longer and why. Then do those things that you hate, hoping that the PCs take them out and make them suffer

Selfish is all about them and their philosophies. Ranging from how can I get mine to how can I get mine without thinking about who gets hurt
Child porn for example: They are not in it to hurt kids, but it can make a decent amount of money. Children getting violated is a rather unfortuante circumstance, but it brings in the money

Evil likes to hurt people. Likes to see people suffer, their tears and blood as their superficial and ignorant innocence fleeing from their bodies being filled with the truth that, yes dear, evil does exist
Childporn here is the goal. hurting the children. non of this NAMBLA stuff, this is full on violation with objects kind of thing. The money is a benefit, but the true pay off is the pain being caused. Kind of like really enjoying your job and getting paid for soemthing you would do for free.

I like what gil and vika said.

Evil requires a choice and an effort to suppress relatively normal impulses. That is why psychopaths are prone to be evil: the normal impulses are already suppressed somehow.

Natasha wrote:I like what gil and vika said.

Evil requires a choice and an effort to suppress relatively normal impulses. That is why psychopaths are prone to be evil: the normal impulses are already suppressed somehow.

By that definition, though, psychopaths aren't evil, since they don't make a choice or effort to suppress the normal impulses.

(Unless you mean that they have to suppress their normal urges to kill in order to fit in with society, and that it's evil of them to do so... but I assume that's not what you're saying. )

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Natasha wrote:I like what gil and vika said.

Evil requires a choice and an effort to suppress relatively normal impulses. That is why psychopaths are prone to be evil: the normal impulses are already suppressed somehow.

By that definition, though, psychopaths aren't evil, since they don't make a choice or effort to suppress the normal impulses.

(Unless you mean that they have to suppress their normal urges to kill in order to fit in with society, and that it's evil of them to do so... but I assume that's not what you're saying. )

Perhaps a comma between choice and effort was needed. I don't know.

In order to be evil one must choose to be evil. There's plenty to inhibit evil - empathy, life philosophy, etc. Remove the inhibition and you're left with a psychopath prone to be evil.

A psychopath will not feel empathy for his victim but still must choose to victimise and might be fully aware that he is committing an act of evil in the process, as opposed to more normal behaviour and impulses.

There are of course other situations and conditions and complexities which I have not covered. For the purpose of helping a GM get into a villain's head, however, I think this is quite sufficient and still acceptably accurate if somewhat simplified.

Natasha wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Natasha wrote:I like what gil and vika said.

Evil requires a choice and an effort to suppress relatively normal impulses. That is why psychopaths are prone to be evil: the normal impulses are already suppressed somehow.

By that definition, though, psychopaths aren't evil, since they don't make a choice or effort to suppress the normal impulses.

(Unless you mean that they have to suppress their normal urges to kill in order to fit in with society, and that it's evil of them to do so... but I assume that's not what you're saying. )

Perhaps a comma between choice and effort was needed. I don't know.

In order to be evil one must choose to be evil. There's plenty to inhibit evil - empathy, life philosophy, etc. Remove the inhibition and you're left with a psychopath prone to be evil.

A psychopath will not feel empathy for his victim but still must choose to victimise and might be fully aware that he is committing an act of evil in the process, as opposed to more normal behaviour and impulses.

There are of course other situations and conditions and complexities which I have not covered. For the purpose of helping a GM get into a villain's head, however, I think this is quite sufficient and still acceptably accurate if somewhat simplified.

Gotcha.

seven wrote:personally i always viewed myself as aberrant.

Unless you kill underlings for being disloyal, you're not really aberrant.

I don't think one chooses to be evil. I think if one is evil they simply allow their inner nature to be let loose

I think psychopath is a blanket term where we put all the things we don't like or that do not conform to our morality and ethics.

The difference lies not in if one cares or not, but if one realizeswhat they are doing is wrong, by trying to hide their actions, cover them up and lie about it.

A psychopath who kills and eats people might hide the evidence as part of a gallery because it is soemthing he and his victims share, a special intimate relationship that few others know or understand. This person might invite you in to see his "friends" as a priveledge, hiding it because it is sacred, not out of guilt

This versus the evil cannibal who simply loves the taste of human meet, knows it is against the law and takes steps, and likes to hear the victims scream or cry as they realize they are not going to get out of this. he might be a bit detached asking the victims what are they thinking? what do they wish they had done with their lives instead? who is going to miss them? Causing them to refelct and experience the pain even more as a bonus

seven wrote:I am on my seconds game, my first game was rather a successful fantasy setting, and a success in that it didn't fail, but evil was really somewhat clear cut ad easier. now that I/we have moved on to Hero's, we tried our first game and Evil and psycho is HARD, i just can't wrap my brain around it- brain can not compute or think on that level.

For GM's whom have more experience then me, what are some tips and tricks you use to "get on that level" both in front of the characters and operating in the background (before the character find you)?

With Evil, I always keep in mind

"The road to hell is paved in good intentions".

Psychotic Evil is one where you do evil as a sort of "faceless revenge". In a character, this person usually grew up with little or nothing to balance out the "bad" in life. There was no where to escape torment, there was never a time to reflect. So it becomes a mesh of revenge and jealousy. "Why did you get it easy? I never got X." In a way it's almost viewed as a "balance.", but instead of trying to fill the evil psychos world with TLC he missed when he was younger, he seeks to inflict it upon all those in the world.

Another way is to view it is that when we hear/see/feel certain things, our brain rewards us by making us feel good. Generally, a child laughing our brains reward us, and we know it has because we smile. In someone who's psychic evil, those synapse are messed up, thus what would make our brains punish us when we hear/see something bad, their's rewards them. When playing an evil psycho, just remember that the opposite pleases them, but that doesn't mean they're stupid. So, you have a normal person and an evil psycho at a birthday party. The childs laughter makes the normal person happy, but doesn't (Or makes them sad) to the EP. But, the EP can bring himself a pleasurable sensation by hurting the child, but knows what he's doing is unlawful and if he does it in plain view of everybody, if anybody can stop him, he'll lose his chance at rewarding himself in the future (IE hurting another child).

Munchkin Slappin GM wrote:Watch the TV series Dexter.

True, the people he goes after are all very evil.

As to the original question, I'm gonna approach it from another angle. My advice is, don't get hung up on the whole "eeeeevil!" bit just yet. Instead think of motives and methods.
It's an HU game, so there's superscience to steal, comically giant diamonds at the Gotham Museum of Easily Stolen Priceless Stuff, alien secret agents infiltrating society for their invasion plan, super-power politics and the assorted machiantions going on due to that.
So pick one and start from there. Think about the sort of adventure you want. Like, for example, you want the PCs to have to recover stolen loot so you go with thefts, or you want the PCs to have the extra challenge of keeping someone alive so you want them to thwart an assassin.
Now, what is being stolen, or who is being targetted? And why? Bigass diamonds are obvious theft targets. Senators pushing controvertial bills are obvious assassination target. But, and here's where you get to the "eeeevil" bit if you want, how and why does the perp go about it?
The thief is stealing the diamond, and there's a guard in his way. Does he calmly and casually kill the guard? Leave him MO'd and tied up in a supply closet? Set up a diversion so he can slip to the guard's left while he checks the noise on his right?
The assassin going after the senator? That's evil, but how evil? Does he kill the man's aides too? Does he risk other innocents? Does he stage something big that kills more people but maybe hides his true intent?
Once you get this, then you get to the scary evil types.
Serial killers: Often they're addicts. Watch a drug movie like Trainspotting then mentally replace heroin with murder. Or they're delusional. Bob doesn't like to kill people, and he doesn't. He kills the shapeshifting lizard demons who are plotting to destroy humanity. Bob's not evil, he's scared because he's the only one who can see this truth so it's up to him to stop them. Think of Bruce Campbell in Evil Dead and then imagine there's no deadites, just hallucinations or delusions.
Crime bosses: The thing is, crime is often run like a business. Your drug kingpin is like a CEO. He has cashflow issues, production issues, hostile takeovers to fend off. If he's out to kill someone, it's not "just 'cause", it's because the victim is a threat to him, or has personally angered him. For the threats, he'll likely be cold, ruthless, detached. That guy is an obstacle, remove him. But maybe he'll be angry and lose control over the personal slight. For an added dimension, maybe this makes him sloppy, or look like a loose cannon and has his rivals move in for the kill.
The "supers must die/be enslaved" guy: Sure he wants mutants put in camps or killed. But why? Could be simple fear and a desire to protect normals. The guy could be basically a gun control advocate, only instead of guns, you have genes. Impassioned but not really playing off as hostile. He doesn't hate muties, he just doesn't see a place for them. Or he could hate them, maybe something happened in the past that made him hate them.

The thing is, pretty much nobody ever goes "I will be evil!", well not seriously anyway. So if you try to come at it from a "what would Evil McEvilson say?" standpoint, you'll get nowhere. It all comes down to motivations (which can themselves be evil), and how far you're willing to go for them.

I think a good starting spot for villains is the Anarchist. They seem more evil than even Abberrant. They are the epitome of selfishness. I do what I want when I want to who I want where I want. They don't workw ell in groups, their motives can change ona dime, their allegiances myabe as long as it takes to voice them. I am willing to say that most comic book villains are anarchist. Joker is certainly diabolic, but most just want to rob places/people/things. They are doing a job for money not caring about what or who gets hurt while doing so.

KillWatch wrote:I think a good starting spot for villains is the Anarchist. They seem more evil than even Abberrant. They are the epitome of selfishness. I do what I want when I want to who I want where I want. They don't workw ell in groups, their motives can change ona dime, their allegiances myabe as long as it takes to voice them. I am willing to say that most comic book villains are anarchist. Joker is certainly diabolic, but most just want to rob places/people/things. They are doing a job for money not caring about what or who gets hurt while doing so.

I am going to disagree with you.

To me, Anarchist is "almost evil" in the way that Unprincipled is "almost good" The Anarchist is certainly selfish, and sometimes even evil, but to me is ultimately like Miscreant Lite. I would say that most villains are Miscreant.

most crime is committed by people who want/need money. Gangsters are anarchists in that they step all over people to fulfill their own goals. Sometiems they align with each other but mostl they are looking out for themselves and paranoid about their own people. And if they don't like the "leadership" more violence ensues.

I think good and evil both have goals in mind, helping or hurting people. Anarchists are really just doing anything they can to further themselves, blowing up government agencies or buildings or simply beating up the boss who told you that you needed to work the weekend.

Perhaps not evil but I would say the most dangerous.

It makes me laugh when someone wants to play an anarchist dedicated martial artist

KillWatch wrote:It makes me laugh when someone wants to play an anarchist dedicated martial artist

Why not? He may be obsessed with his martial art, and considered very little else, including laws or personal attachments, worth focusing on.

Anarchist is a moral leaning, not a personality description. You seem to see it as a sort of bouncing off the walls Chaotic Neutral sort of thing. I see it as more of a selfish, but not overtly malicious type. The second he starts abandoning the few principles he has left is when he slides into Miscreant.

Brian

no I see it as someone who values personal freedom above all else, including laws, and "oppressive" regimens that would be required to dedicate ones self to the study of any serious skill let alone umpteen years of humbled service and duty required to learn a martial art.

I'm bored
You're not the boss of me
What makes him think he can treat ME this way
I don't need to be ttreated like an idiot
Laws are for people unambitious or stupid enough to follow them
Anyone who isn't looking out for themselves deserves to be taken advantage of


Anarchist is the alignment of ADD

KillWatch wrote:no I see it as someone who values personal freedom above all else, including laws, and "oppressive" regimens that would be required to dedicate ones self to the study of any serious skill let alone umpteen years of humbled service and duty required to learn a martial art.

The writers of the game feel differently: they described Raphael as Anarchist, and he's a ninja.

see I would call him aberrant. Maybe they didn't want one of the turtles to be "evil" but I've never really considered Abberrant as evil

KillWatch wrote:see I would call him aberrant. Maybe they didn't want one of the turtles to be "evil" but I've never really considered Abberrant as evil

Or, possibly, the writers of the game have their alignments correct, and you're the one misinterpreting them.

Anarchist (Selfish)
This type of character likes to indulge himself in everything. He is
the insurgent, con-man, gambler and high-roller; the uncommitted freebooter
seeking nothing more than self-gratification. This character will,
at least, consider doing anything if the price is right. These people are
intrigued by power, glory and wealth. Life has meaning, but his has the
greatest meaning. Laws and rules infringe on personal freedom and
were meant to be broken. An anarchist aligned person is always looking
for the best deal, and will work with good, selfish or evil beings to get
it; as long as he comes out of the situation on top. The anarchist is continually teetering between good and evil, rebelling against and bending
the law to fit his needs. Mercenaries and thieves often fall into this category.
Anarchist Characters W i l l . . .
1. May keep his word.
2. Lie and cheat if he feels it necessary.
3. Not likely to kill an unarmed foe, but will certainly knockout, attack,
or beat up an unarmed foe.
4. Never kill an innocent (but may harm or kidnap).
5. Not likely to help someone without some ulterior motive (even if it's
only to show-off).
6. Seldom kill for pleasure.
7. Use torture to extract information (not likely to torture for pleasure).
8. Does not work well in a group (this is the cocky loudmouth who is
likely to do as he damn well pleases).
9. Have little respect for self-discipline or authority.
10. May betray a friend

The problem I have here is the killing innocence. It goes agains the flow of the rest of the alignment. Anything they want.
Now raphael might be a turtle with anger manaement issues but he would never betray a friend he is extremely loyal, respects splinter for what he is.
An anarchist would have left them LONG ago. Between Leonardo's status as a "favored son" and the discipline from an old rat, he wouldn't last long. There are a couple of words that sum up raph; Honorable, Loyal, Angry, Violent. If that isn't Aberrant what is? It certainly isn't anarchist.

Aberrant (Evil)
The cliche that there is "No honor among thieves" is false wha
dealing with the aberrant character. This is a person who is driven to attain
his goals through force, power, and intimidation. Yet the aberrant
character stands apart from the norm, with his own, personal code of
ethics (although twisted ethics by the standards of good). He expect!
loyalty from his minions, punishing disloyalty and treachery with a
swift, merciful death. An aberrant character will always keep his word
of honor and uphold any bargains. He will define his terms and live by
them, whether anyone else likes it or not.
Aberrant Characters Will...
1. Always keep his word of honor (he is honorable).
2. Lie to and cheat those not worthy of his respect.
3. May or may not kill an unarmed foe.
4. Not kill (may harm, kidnap) an innocent, particularly a child.
5. Never kills for pleasure.
6. Not resort to inhumane treatment of prisoners, but torture, although
distasteful, is a necessary means of extracting information.
7. Never torture for pleasure.
8. May or may not help someone in need.
9. Work with others to attain his goals.
10. Respect honor and self-discipline.
11. Never betray a friend.

This isn't Raph? And where does the evil come in?
Not to mention even if you disagree that Anarchist is evil, abberrant surely isn't either

Personal Profile: Raphael has some kind of minor insanity that makes
him the "crazy" man of the group. He has problems being controlled
and cannot even control himself. When agitated, he has a 75%
chance of going into a "berserker" rage. It takes several melee rounds
for him to recover himself. He's fine most of the time, but when
he gets into a berserker rage, watch out! This makes him an awesome
fighter, but also a little hard to live with.
He doesn't like this side of himself, but he can't yet control it.
It is like a demon living inside him, barely kept in check. A large
part of why Raphael hasn't yet killed himself, or any of the other
turtles
So it seems that the only part of him that "is" anarchist is the part that is psychotic. He doesn't like it and it shouldn't be taken itno account as Anarchist. If anything it seems he values the discipline, the friendship, the loyalty of the others that helps him get through the day without slitting his wrists or walking into foot HQ and saying bring it and dying in a blaze of not so much glory

KillWatch wrote:Now raphael might be a turtle with anger manaement issues but he would never betray a friend he is extremely loyal, respects splinter for what he is.

When he goes into his frenzy, he could well betray a friend. That's been a plot point several times.
As has his problems with discipline.
And "little respect" does not equal "no respect."

But hey, you want to keep arguing that you know better what Kev and company had in mind with their alignment system than they themselves would, you have fun with that.
Just don't be shocked if nobody else really agrees with you.

The psychosis should not play part in his alignment, espescially when he fights against it and wants it to stop.

What "kev" had in mind with the alignments doesn't necassarily directly translate into it's execution. But you are assuming that "kev" is perfect. Anarchist is the selfish of the selfish, but aberrant isn't evil. It can be mean and cruel, but it isn't evil.

Nobody agrees with me? you are the only one actively arguing against me. Now I am not saying that everyone does, or even most people, but some may. But SOME is a lot more than NONE. Then again it doesn't matter if anyone agrees with me. Until someone makes an argument that changes my mind or puts it into a perspective I have not seen before. Just saying "becasue the books says so" isn't good enough for me.
Here are some other areas I don't agree with;
-SNPS, CPS, Beastly Strength etc.
-Bonuses starting at 16
-PPE being used for magic
-PE being the battery for magic
-Geomancy as Chi instead of a school of magic
-Speed adding nothing to SPD, which it did in TMNT
-I think Bio E is a much better way to build a Eugenics character than money
-Power Stacking not allowed, although for NPCs it is fine, but I have been doing it for over a decade now
-Education tables instead of basing skills on IQ. (Einstein would only have a +1% to advanced math)
-umpteen ways to take down invulnerability
-umpteen ways to make someone invulnerable becase invulnerability is no longer good enough
-umpteen super strength powers because people aren't creative enough to alter existing powers to fit their characters in interesting ways
-PU1 and 3

with all this being said I still think Palladium is one of the best systems, and the one I prefer.

KillWatch wrote:The psychosis should not play part in his alignment, espescially when he fights against it and wants it to stop.

Sure.
People's mental characteristics never play a part in their personalities, after all.
Especially if they're something that we don't like about ourselves and our behavior.

You are putting it all into pesonality, I am dissecting it

Who is he without the rage? Would he just walk away from the TMNT because he doesn't "need" them anymore?

He has a psychosis, even being generous that is a bit more than a personal character defect.

So my problem is I fly into fits of blinding rage and I scare myself and worry about my family, and whether or not I will die or kill someone I care about
what about you?

I eat too much and don't exercise enough
and you?

I have nightmares where I am cutting up and eating children, not just any children but those in the neighborhood, and it terrifies me


really KC?

KillWatch wrote:You are putting it all into pesonality,

Of course; that's what alignment is about.

What-if scenarios about what a person might be like without key aspects of their personality don't determine a person's alignment, their actual personality does.
Ted Bundy might well have been Scrupulous IF he wasn't insane, but that's not how things worked out.

Ted Bundy, as far as I know from A&E Biography Most Evil etc, didn't show remorse. He's just evil

I think someone who is compelled to do things they don't want to are insane. If that voice insid eyour head tells you to rape your 3 year old sister violently, and you don't want to you are nuts. If you comply and enjoy it, you are evil.

Was hitler evil before he killed all those jews? yes, it just wasn't realized, and we will nevre know just how evil he could have been

KillWatch wrote:Ted Bundy, as far as I know from A&E Biography Most Evil etc, didn't show remorse. He's just evil

That's the hallmark of being sociopathic.
If he wasn't a sociopath- if he didn't have that particular insanity- then he would show remorse.

I think sociopath is just a psychologists way to explain away evil, going on the basis that there is no evil, that no one is born evil and that anyone who wants to hurt others and enjoys it is simply a) misunderstood, b) psychologically damaged.

Now I do believe that there are reasons why people hurt others that do sit firmly in the realm of psychology. That persistant trauma can create monsters.

But sometimes people are just bad

the only real natural healthy psychology is that of selfishness. Evolutionarily writing, self preservation is what nature wants for us. Charity, self sacrifice, etc for mammals anyhow, is seen as simply stupid. You must survive, you must breed, you must move on to others, you must defend your territory.

What I am getting at is that being good could also be considered a pychologicl malady, but we don't look at that side of it because we want to encourage it. and if you dig enough you can find some real or imagined reason that someone is trying to compensate for or relieve some kind of guilt, or even having some sort of messiah, superiority or hero complex, making people feel bad about doing good things. Same thing with evil. We don't like to think that evil is evil. We like to think that there is something wrong with them, clean it up, put it in a box and sanitize it.

I disagree that we are naturally selfish. If we weren't a social cooperative species, civilization would never get built.
We are designed to work in groups, and back each other up. Humans who did not do this wandered into the wilderness and got eaten by saber tooth tigers.
When people betray each other for selfish reasons, it is seen as wrong, and shameful.

But I agree that "sociopathy" is just a modern way to describe evil behavior. Modern psychology doesn't really think in terms of good and evil.
It's not really possible to say "Oh, he is really Scrupulous, but he has sociopathy so, he lies, kills, and betrays without remorse." That is an extreme example, but a person who behaves in a Diabolic manner, should be statted as Diabolic."
If a psychiatrist publishes a paper about about a behavior that forces people to obey the law, believe in honor, and always keep their word, we won't stop using the Principled alignment. "He is probably Anarchist, but you can't tell, since he has Altruist Syndrome."

Anyway, this isn't the real world. This is a roleplaying game designed to emulate fiction. In real life, you almost never see a man who coolly murders someone, then goes to a dinner party as if nothing happens, as you might find in a mystery story. Psychologists will tell you that killing someone messes you up. Even a trained cop or soldier often has to undergo therapy after killing someone. It gets easier over time, but never totally easy. This is evolution. A race of animals that calmly murders its own members usually doesn't live long. Even most fights for dominance end in one animal surrendering and the other accepting. (You see this in barroom brawls all the time. And we accept surrenders in wartime, even though it's not efficient to do so. The only reason we can easily kill at all is that we are tool-users that can make weapons that finish the fight before the enemy can surrender.)

A Miscreant would do it, but not coolly. He would probably freak out a bit, then come up with a justification as to why he had to do it, there was no choice. To calmly murder someone, then instantly put it out of your mind, takes something worse. In real world terms, probably a sociopath. In fictional Palladium terms, a Diabolical alignment.

KillWatch wrote:I think sociopath is just a psychologists way to explain away evil,

You disagree with the professionals in their own field in favor of your own opinions of how things should be.
Somehow this does not surprise me.

I disagree that we are naturally selfish. If we weren't a social cooperative species, civilization would never get built.
We are designed to work in groups, and back each other up. Humans who did not do this wandered into the wilderness and got eaten by saber tooth tigers.
When people betray each other for selfish reasons, it is seen as wrong, and shameful.
-Unless we favor socialism over capitalism. Every tribe needed a leader and even now we aren't really out of the woods on hostile take overs. We band together for selfish reasons, so that we will survive as you have pointed out, not so we can help someone else. And when we do help someone else we usually expect something in return, be it pulling us from the jaws of a sabertooth or a thankyou and some gratitude. Why is altruism so valued? it's becuase it is rare. But most of the time I hear altruism while people roll their eyes and disbelief.

That is an extreme example, but a person who behaves in a Diabolic manner, should be statted as Diabolic."
If a psychiatrist publishes a paper about about a behavior that forces people to obey the law, believe in honor, and always keep their word, we won't stop using the Principled alignment. "He is probably Anarchist, but you can't tell, since he has Altruist Syndrome."
-I disagree, but I am glad you stopped using smilies. But someone could be diabolic or miscreant, but hasn't either been encouraged or reached that point where it comes to the surface. Most people don't explore themselves, ask questions of themselves which results in surprising behaviors in times of extremes. What would you do if you were guaranteed not to get caught or in trouble? Who are we without watchful eyes or laws to prevent or discourage our behavior? I am willing to bet that most people would turn into thieves. But on the extremes, people are good or evil. Humans are selfish, just as most of nature.

Anyway, this isn't the real world. This is a roleplaying game designed to emulate fiction. In real life, you almost never see a man who coolly murders someone, then goes to a dinner party as if nothing happens, as you might find in a mystery story.
-Agreed but that goes along with good and evil being extremes and rare. Most people would love to steal but know the reprecussions of those actions. Self preservation prevents them from doing these things for the most part.

Psychologists will tell you that killing someone messes you up. Even a trained cop or soldier often has to undergo therapy after killing someone. It gets easier over time, but never totally easy. This is evolution.
-No I think we are just so far from every day killing that we ave become sensitive to it. I have been pondering this one for some time; "why is life so much more precious now when we have too many people, versus when there were less than a billion people on the planet?" The answer is death was more common. Infant death, massive battles that resulted in 10,000 dead in an afternoon, 45 being an old age, etc. Death was all around us, and while it was still a "bad" thing that caused people to cry and weep, it wasn't unusual. Now? Even if one person dies in an obscure tornado in OK we hear about it on the national news. If a white girl goes missing you won't be able to get away from it.

A race of animals that calmly murders its own members usually doesn't live long.
>>>And tere you are wrong. Apes kill each other. Ants kill each other. Lions and Tigers kill the young of other males so that their line continues. There are species that only go into heat when they have no young to care for, which is why the males kill the young so that the females ovulate once again. So you are wrong. And while these circumstances are certianly stupid in modern eyes because they seriously need to breed more as they become endangered, It has served them for hundreds of thousands of years, allowing them to become immune to many disease such as HIV

The only reason we can easily kill at all is that we are tool-users that can make weapons that finish the fight before the enemy can surrender.)
>>> so no one died in war before the winchester repeater? Killing is in our nature. We are omnivores. I would accept that for the most part scavengers, feeding off the kills of others, but to say humans do not have a killer instinct is turning a blind eye to much of human history. Humans are only one of two creatures I know kill for little to no reason. The other s the cukoo? I think? Anyhow there is a bird that lays its eggs in another birds nest so that they may raise the bird as their own. The egg is usually 3x larger than their own. When the usurping bird hatches, it shoves the other eggs out of the nests, and grows to the siaze of the nest while the surrogate parents exhaust themselves trying to feed the chick who is already larger than themsleves. Ants to I guess, as they are cold and efficient and well evil. Invading even other ant's mounds to kill off the adults, eat them and use their larva as either food or future slaves. I suppose in he life of an ant serving one master or another isn't really all that terrible.

KillWatch wrote:I disagree that we are naturally selfish. If we weren't a social cooperative species, civilization would never get built.
We are designed to work in groups, and back each other up. Humans who did not do this wandered into the wilderness and got eaten by saber tooth tigers.

The thing is, I think that we are naturally selfish AND naturally socially cooperative.
It's not an either/or thing- everybody is each or both depending on the situation they find themselves in.

I think some of the best commentary on human nature can be found at two (admittedly unofficial) sources.

http://www.cracked.com/article_14990_wh ... phere.html

and

http://www.cavemenwithcellphones.com/