When I was a kid, the Game Genie video game add-on hit the markets. If you don't remember this product, it was a "cheat aid" for games that took the form of a cartridge that you plugged another cartridge into. When you'd boot your console, the first thing you'd get was a "Game Genie" screen that let you enter cheat codes that would give you infinite lives, change the physics of the game, or in whatever other way, make the game easier.
I wish I would have been mature enough to use the product well. Instead, I just used it to cheat at games, which made them very much "not fun."
Is cheating at video games evil? Probably not. But the motivation behind it points to what I believe is one of the most accessible ways of understanding evil.
The Fall of Saruman
In the Lord of the Rings trilogy of films, "evil" is portrayed in an interesting way. The Orcs aren't the enemy simply because of xenophobia, or even because they're genetically warlike. The Orcs are evil because they're machines of war, literally produced in bulk in underground warehouses. These Orcs are not sentient creatures capable of rational philosophy about the nature of their being. They have more in common with The Terminator than they do with any faerie-tale beast.
When confronted with a decision about his own life and how to live it, the wizard Saruman made the decision to use the Game Genie. In other words, he intended to overcome evil not through a good life, but through the acquisition of enough power to master evil. Saruman's road involved seeking the One Ring for his own, and to this end, he literally built factories for Orcs to do his bidding.
Saruman's conflict and choice is not unlike Boromir's: he knows a great evil is at hand, and he sees the opportunity to use a shortcut to ensure he is not bested by evil. To a generally "good" person, it might seem inconceivable to imagine creating an army of warlike creatures to make sure evil doesn't "get you." It might be slightly more tenable to take the power of a seemingly benign object (say, a ring.) But even more accessible is the notion of simple cheating a la the Game Genie.
Evil in your Games
I imagine all gamers have had the moment where they're questioning the Orc after a battle to determine the location of his stronghold. Inevitably, the moment arises when the questioning is done: what do you do with Mr. Orc--kill him or let him go? It's tough when that feels like a decision between good and evil for your characters. If there is any chance of redemption for the Orc, the "good" thing to do seems to be to let him go.
One needn't worry about this with Saruman's Orcs: they're evil. They're unredeemable. While my personal real-life world-view leads me to believe that everything is redeemable, I agree with Bryan that my own faith and the nature of religion in the games I play need not intersect. So, when I'm watching a movie, or playing a game, I can simply say that the bad guy is evil.
This isn't to say you shouldn't have complicated villains, or have your characters occasionally make tough moral decisions. These make for compelling role-playing--some of the time, but for the most part, giving your players enemies that are undeniably and unchangeably "evil" makes for a generally satisfying game.
Evil 101
B/X Blackrazor has a great post on using the fear of cannibalism in games. Monsters who chew on bits of humans make for good unredeemable characters. If your players aren't buying it, throw in some subtle suggestions that the enemy has a fondness for the taste of children or expectant mothers--remember, defending mothers is archetypal!
Having enemies who choose soft "civilian" targets is also good for showing players that the enemy has no remorse. Whether your monsters bypass the barracks to target the market, or skip the castle and go for the temple, creatures who routinely and sadistically look for the place that they can do the most damage at the least risk helps establish that they are a threat that needs to be stopped. Again, keep the tone "gamelike:" humans certainly engage in this behavior, but to be game-ish, make it clear that monsters are doing the dirty deeds!
Lastly, two elements from the Lord of the Rings films suggest evil to a great degree. First is the aforementioned "evil factories." Don't hesitate to steal this idea: creatures made and not born feel so much more like the robotic "Foot Clan" used in the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles cartoon to justify the violence. Also from those films was the death of Boromir: your players will not hesitate to pull the trigger on an enemy who gratuitously executes a wounded hero at point-blank range.
And if your players do decide they "don't want to stoop to the enemy's level," give them an easy out (unless tough decisions are part of the game.) Give them a Gotham asylum. Have the police make regular rounds to pick up bad guys.
The Mastermind
Evil for the sake of evil is hard to sustain. So, remember to keep behind it a human intelligence--in other words, a redeemable creature. This will be an NPC who has, at some point, made the decision that employing evil will get him or her to a desired outcome more quickly or easily--such as Saruman, or Watchmen's Ozymandias, or The Bible's Judas Iscariot. These characters were not Orcs, they were men who saw a problem, and upon realizing that the solution would be difficult, decided to go a different route.
They decided to use the Game Genie.
Do you have tips for portraying evil in games? Do you have a great story of evil well done (with a side of fries?) Want to defend the Game Genie? Let us know in the comments!
PDF
That is a really fantastic post. I must admit that I still don’t actually understand evil. I don’t get why people make that choice. But, with your “cheat code” analogy, I think I’m a bit closer.
I tend to think that there are two kinds of evil. One recognizes itself as in fact being evil, but either doesn’t care or can’t control itself (maybe we can call this post-modern evil). These tend to be the deranged ones like Manson. They’re rare in the real world, but for some reason, this is the type of evil that seems to crop up in a lot of RPGs.
The second, though, really think they’re doing the right thing. They hurt people “for their own good.” For instance: the Khmer Rouge, the Inquisition, or the Taliban. I think it’s this second type that uses “cheat codes”, and are probably more interesting, more damaging to the world, and more scary.
One game that really reminds me of this is the “Empires” release of the Dynasty Warriors games. In between battles you could take actions as a ruler. The easiest route was always the Tyrant, where you got free soldiers and weapons for your actions. Being the good guy actually entailed you sell your weapons and release the soldiers, which weakened your goal of conquering ancient China.
I found this to be an amazing element, where it asks the player what outcome they want and showing them how you do it. It speaks volumes of what the player seeks in the game…even though the game revolves around bashing other warriors in the head. Sure, not the best example given that, but it’s what comes to mind when I think this.
As per Chase’s example above, I tend to think of ‘evil’ as consciously choosing something other than the right thing to do. While we humans can justify selfish acts better than we do most anything else, that focus on personal gain versus the common good is always the moral dilemma. That’s true ‘good vs. evil’ in my head.