The problem with some cultists

Good and evil are terms primarily used by people who are moral (note the difference between moral and good, mind). It's a term to describe socially correct and socially abhorrent deeds. That's why doing evil for the sake of doing evil makes no sense. It's doing socially abhorrent things for the sake of doing socially abhorrent things.

What is this hypthetical person? A psychopathic rebellious teen with delusions of grandeur?
It's essentially the same as having a character that goes "Oh, it's tuesday... I guess I'll have to murder someone today".

Thing is... people who are evil tend to either not care about morals, be very passionate about something (even morals, to the point of punishing people and thus crossing the moral boundary themselves) or not be able to help themselves. In no case are they doing evil for it's own sake.
The first group does evil to reach their goals, but won't go out of their way to do so. The second might be very well aware they are doing bad things, but see their duty as much more important and might be willing to take the consequence once their "crusades" are finished.
The third group might not care or care deeply that they do evil... but cannot stop. Wether it's addiction or the emotional rush they get from it. They might live in the moment or deeply regret what they're doing. But they're not doing evil for it's own sake, they're doing evil because they can't stop.

Essentially... deep evil characters either do evil because they have to to reach their goals or because their flaws control them. But it's never something they choose to do. It just happens along the way.
Anyything else is essentially deep as a puddle and best as a comic villain, rather than an interesting character.

I was just thinking, is it even possible to be evil without any reason? Isn't there always a reason by default, be it due to some complicated reason, sadism, or a mental disorder?

If you say your character simply is evil for the sake of it, is that even logical/possible? Any examples if so? To me it simply doesn't even seem possible.

Editting with a quote of Thelos:

I think there are bad guys that think they are bad guys because they are bad guys.

They might think they are bad because they are bad, but would they in truth actually be bad because they are bad?

Muzjhath wrote:. Frankly, it is also one that imo a bad roleplayer who have trouble understanding how humans work would go about doing it.

I find this comment to be extremely demeaning. I seem to radically disagree with you all how humans work, and I'd like to at least be respected for that, and not ridiculed. Do not tell me I do not understand how humans work. I'll never tell you you dont, and I expect the same kind of respect in return.

Right, so with existentialism coined, the debate is a little easier for me. Existantialism (Taking Sartre as the paradigm) says "Existence precedes essence". I tend to think in more Platonic ways. Basicly, "Essence precedes excistence", the direct negation. In metaphysics I am mostly Platonic. In morality (as opposed to Ethics), I am Kantian.

With that out of the way, lets put the theory in to practise.

Muzjhath wrote:Good is a morality stand point.

I disagree. Good and evil are facts, as in actual things, that are presupposed by any particular morality stand point.

Drustai wrote:What is the 'right' thing for them to do is what they have learned is right.

Agreed. What is the right thing for them is different from what the right thing actually is. However, that does not mean they aren't motivated to the right thing because they believe it to be the right thing. They do not think "I will do the right thing that is right for me!". No. They think "I will do the right thing, because it is the right thing!". They can be wrong, but that doesn't change the fact that they were motivated by the good as a fact, not their personal good. Their actual actions may be based on their personal good, but not their motivation.

They are motivated to do the right thing because it is the right thing, and then act in accordance to what they have been taught is the right thing.

Muzjhath wrote:
1I'm sure as hell that Stalin didn't have all the death camps he had because he "wanted to be evil", 2and King and Ghandi didn't do what they did because "THey wanted to be good".

1) I agree
2) I disagree

That about wraps it up for what I have to say about the matter. In closing, I would like to direct your attention to the following:

Why is it that so many people put normative or value-judgements in quotation marks? I have seen this many times in this thread. Especially "Good" and "Evil". Why do you do this? Is it to express you do not really thing there is such a thing as an absolute value? That a judgement on values should always be made relative? Is it because by "Good" you always mean "Good depending on a certain point of view or paradim", and you just want a way to abbreviate this? Or is it because you are trying to say Good and Evil in a sarcastic tone? I don't think I completely understand what those quotation marks mean here.

Crojwin wrote:I was just thinking, is it even possible to be evil without any reason? Isn't there always a reason by default, be it due to some complicated reason, sadism, or a mental disorder?

If you say your character simply is evil for the sake of it, is that even logical/possible? Any examples if so? To me it simply doesn't even seem possible.

That depends whether you think Humans are biologically hardwired to always do what they percieve to be good and always act in according to what best furthers their advancements towards the things they value.

I dont think we are. Its not at all a dumb or illogical train of thought, though, so I can understand if there are those that do.

Thelos, I find it wonderful that you turn to philosophy in this case, but you must understand that not everyone here understands your teminology.

Just my two cents. Other than that, +1 for you.

Muzjhath wrote:. Frankly, it is also one that imo a bad roleplayer who have trouble understanding how humans work would go about doing it.

Thelos, first. I didn't point my line about the bad roleplayers to anyone specific. Just how I see it with anyone who plays a character and haven't explored the moral and psycological depths of said character. (If it's a characte for any longer use. A 5 hour use and discard pesant don't really need it.)

Thelos wrote:

Muzjhath wrote:Good is a morality stand point.

I disagree. Good and evil are facts, as in actual things, that are presupposed by any particular morality stand point.

Drustai wrote:What is the 'right' thing for them to do is what they have learned is right.

Agreed. What is the right thing for them is different from what the right thing actually is. However, that does not mean they aren't motivated to the right thing because they believe it to be the right thing. They do not think "I will do the right thing that is right for me!". No. They think "I will do the right thing, because it is the right thing!". They can be wrong, but that doesn't change the fact that they were motivated by the good as a fact, not their personal good. Their actual actions may be based on their personal good, but not their motivation.

They are motivated to do the right thing because it is the right thing, and then act in accordance to what they have been taught is the right thing.

On this we fully disagree. I don't see Good and Evil as things. I see them as words to describe actions that we as persons see morally wrong. I don't see a serial killer as evil. I see him as a damaged induvidual who for some reason do moraly (for me) bad things. I don't see those things he does as Evil, simply bad. So I won't take this issue more since we know where we stand, and it is doubtful to change that over a forum debate.

Thelos wrote:

Muzjhath wrote:
1I'm sure as hell that Stalin didn't have all the death camps he had because he "wanted to be evil", 2and King and Ghandi didn't do what they did because "THey wanted to be good".

1) I agree
2) I disagree

On the bolded part. My reason for saying what I did is because they both believed that human beings as equal. Thus they set out to make their society equal. They did it because they wanted everyone to be treated the same. They didn't want anyone made lesser because they had a different colour skin or were born in the wrong neighbourhood by parents who weren't priests.
I don't see that as "Wanting to be Good". I see it as wanting equal rights. They did the right thing. They did things extreamly altruistic. Yet they had far deeper meaning in their action than a will to be good.
Just my stance on it.

Thelos wrote:
That about wraps it up for what I have to say about the matter. In closing, I would like to direct your attention to the following:

Why is it that so many people put normative or value-judgements in quotation marks? I have seen this many times in this thread. Especially "Good" and "Evil". Why do you do this? Is it to express you do not really thing there is such a thing as an absolute value? That a judgement on values should always be made relative? Is it because by "Good" you always mean "Good depending on a certain point of view or paradim", and you just want a way to abbreviate this? Or is it because you are trying to say Good and Evil in a sarcastic tone? I don't think I completely understand what those quotation marks mean here.

I put Good and Evil within quotation marks because I see them as abstract concepts humans have made up o explain things they dissagree with on a moral and ethical basis. I see them as nothing more than loaded words that get thrown around when people do horrid things one might disagree with to get support by making someone see worse than they might be.
I also see them as a plauge on much litterature of fantasy nature where the concepts are used by lesser writers to let them get away with having bad reasons for their villans and heroes to act.

Well all right then Muzjath, you make a sound argument. While we may disagree on some fundamentals, your point of view is coherent with the your fundamentals.This makes further argument on the surface level meaningless. I guess that means we're finished here

Thelos wrote:
That about wraps it up for what I have to say about the matter. In closing, I would like to direct your attention to the following:

Why is it that so many people put normative or value-judgements in quotation marks? I have seen this many times in this thread. Especially "Good" and "Evil". Why do you do this? Is it to express you do not really thing there is such a thing as an absolute value? That a judgement on values should always be made relative? Is it because by "Good" you always mean "Good depending on a certain point of view or paradim", and you just want a way to abbreviate this? Or is it because you are trying to say Good and Evil in a sarcastic tone? I don't think I completely understand what those quotation marks mean here.

That's what the entire discussion is about Thelos. that's why we're abbreviating "Good" and "Evil".

because as you said yourself.

Thelos wrote:I disagree. Good and evil are facts, as in actual things, that are presupposed by any particular morality stand point.

So What is "Good" depends on your character's morals
Because not everyone has the same morality stand point, not everyone has the same definition of what constitutes Good, or Evil

Or do you believe a Jihadist finds it abhorrent to bomb the infidels?
Or do you believe a hitler found it evil to rid the world of the jews?

Thelos wrote:

Drustai wrote:What is the 'right' thing for them to do is what they have learned is right.

Agreed. What is the right thing for them is different from what the right thing actually is. However, that does not mean they aren't motivated to the right thing because they believe it to be the right thing.

And the reason they believe that is because of the way they were raised. While you can consciously do good for the sake of good, or evil for the sake of evil, subconsciously those beliefs originated over the many years of life and the experiences an individual has gone through. They did not exist in that individual at birth, they were developed over time.

They do not think "I will do the right thing that is right for me!".

Never said that.

Why is it that so many people put normative or value-judgements in quotation marks? I have seen this many times in this thread. Especially "Good" and "Evil". Why do you do this? Is it to express you do not really thing there is such a thing as an absolute value? That a judgement on values should always be made relative? Is it because by "Good" you always mean "Good depending on a certain point of view or paradim", and you just want a way to abbreviate this? Or is it because you are trying to say Good and Evil in a sarcastic tone? I don't think I completely understand what those quotation marks mean here.

There is, in my opinion, an absolute good and evil. But people are not naturally predisposed to one or another, and their own definitions of what is good and evil varies entirely based on their upbringing. So a person who somehow thinks murder is 'good' is not a good person, even though his personal morals state so. He might be good in his own mind, but not good overall. Hence why someone like Hitler might believe he was good, but he definitely was not good.

Again though, how they perceive good and evil, and what is their own personal good and evil, is based on the way they were raised.

That depends whether you think Humans are biologically hardwired to always do what they percieve to be good and always act in according to what best furthers their advancements towards the things they value.

I dont think we are. Its not at all a dumb or illogical train of thought, though, so I can understand if there are those that do.

We are biologically hardwired to believe what we are raised to believe. We are blank slates and learn and develop our own interpretations of reality.

Drust your quote says I wrote that but I did not write that, the final one

Crojwin wrote:Drust your quote says I wrote that but I did not write that, the final one

Fixed, sorry.

Drustai wrote:We are blank slates and learn and develop our own interpretations of reality.

This is another fundamental I cannot agree with.

Which means that:

Drustai wrote:While you can consciously do good for the sake of good, or evil for the sake of evil, subconsciously those beliefs originated over the many years of life and the experiences an individual has gone through.

I cannot agree with this, either. Good and Evil are essential objects of thought inherent in the human mind since birth. Inherent as opposed to explicit. I see the Good and Evil like I see the Aristotle's three laws of thought:

• Law of identity
  
• Law of non-contradiction
  
• Low of the excluded middle

That is, laws that are inherent in our way of thinking and reasoning. Without these laws we would not even be able to think at all. In order to come to a personal good and evil, the innate notions of good and evil must already be present in the human spirit.

Amaryl wrote:
So What is "Good" depends on your character's morals

No. What you think to be good depends on your character's morals. What actually is good is independant of any one human and wholly objective.

Amaryl wrote:
Or do you believe a Jihadist finds it abhorrent to bomb the infidels?
Or do you believe a hitler found it evil to rid the world of the jews?

Yes I do. At some deep fundamental level they know it is evil. Whether they consciously think or say so has little to do with it though. It is evil, that's the end of it. You can rationalize all you want but at the end of the day it is wicked, and they know it. Its just that this innate knowledge has been completely buried underneath indoctrination and rationalisation. As it is the case with all of us.

"For the greater good" is one of the most common rationalizations you'll hear.

Thelos wrote:

Drustai wrote:We are blank slates and learn and develop our own interpretations of reality.

This is another fundamental I cannot agree with.

Which means that:

Drustai wrote:While you can consciously do good for the sake of good, or evil for the sake of evil, subconsciously those beliefs originated over the many years of life and the experiences an individual has gone through.

I cannot agree with this, either. Good and Evil are essential objects of thought inherent in the human mind since birth. Inherent as opposed to explicit. I see the Good and Evil like I see the Aristotle's three laws of thought:

• Law of identity
  
• Law of non-contradiction
  
• Low of the excluded middle

That is, laws that are inherent in our way of thinking and reasoning. Without these laws we would not even be able to think at all. In order to come to a personal good and evil, the innate notions of good and evil must already be present in the human spirit.

They are not laws, they are theories. They are attempts at explaining reality--not codified laws ordained by some greater power. They are one man's ideas on our existence.

And the innate notions are not about such abstract concepts as good and evil. They are about survival and procreation. Instinctively, helping another is about ensuring that aid comes to you, because we are naturally social creatures who survive based on community. Killing another is removing potential support, and thus it is commonly seen as evil. But killing someone from an opposing group is good, because they jeopardize your survival.

Those things are natural instinct. Can we ascend above those instincts? Yes, we can. But we ascend above them through our upbringing and education. We are not naturally good or evil. We are naturally and instinctively survival-oriented, and apply good and evil labels based on what is or is not beneficial to us, or by what we are taught is the correct way of thinking.

Amaryl wrote:
So What is "Good" depends on your character's morals

No. What you think to be good depends on your character's morals. What actually is good is independant of any one human and wholly objective.

This I do agree with.

Amaryl wrote:
Or do you believe a Jihadist finds it abhorrent to bomb the infidels?
Or do you believe a hitler found it evil to rid the world of the jews?

Yes I do. At some deep fundamental level they know it is evil. Whether they consciously think or say so has little to do with it though. It is evil, that's the end of it. You can rationalize all you want but at the end of the day it is wicked, and they know it. Its just that this innate knowledge has been completely buried underneath indoctrination and rationalisation. As it is the case with all of us.

No, at some deep fundamental level they don't know. Because they haven't been taught that. Some might have been taught differently and have simply rationalized and justified it to themselves, but for other people they were simply raised without any kind of good morals at all (or rather, raised thinking that the evil they do is good).

"For the greater good" is one of the most common rationalizations you'll hear.

What someone consciously says is not the real reason. It is what they believe... but they believe it because of the way they were raised, and what they have learned to view as the greater good.

While "Good" and "Evil" can indeed be subjective, it is far from the whole truth.

Dru mentioned instinct relating to good and evil and I want to expand on that; With intelligence we transcend basic instincts and control them with established morals - that is why jealousy is not socially accepted, even though it is a very strong instinctual drive. Compassion and civility are not entirely educated, rather the opposite is in fact true - to create someone without compassion, civility or "basic" morals requires quite a bit of molding and reshaping.

As an example, what we commonly know as "Child Soldiers", conscripted children in African nations sent to fight guerilla wars (as opposed to the broader term child soldier which is more wide-spread than Africa). Most of these children - and honestly, a fair few adults - are indoctrinated to embrace instinctual bonds to their own group and hatred for hostile groups, neglecting the compassion and empathy that is otherwise natural to intelligent primates (within a species, generally).

Young children are considered "innocent" just because they start out "inherently moral", or at least with the basic understanding that causing undue harm is wrong (again, within their species, but give them a break, they're like 3 years old.) and that people suffering is bad.

A lot of what we define as "Good" or "Evil" is also indoctrinated into us - but that's only half the truth.

I'm not sure how to respond to this. I basicly said "Good and evil are innate notions we are born with", which you negated by negating Aristotle's theory about Laws of Thought, which I subscribe to. You did not give an argument why you rejected it, nor did I give an argument when I subscribed to it.

Then you argued that there can still be such a thing as innate, objective good and evil without them having to be notions one is born with by giving a sound evolutionary argument. That seems fair. It is a logical move to make. So, like I told Muzjhath before you, you seem to be able to produce coherent and logical story. There's not much else to say.

However these arguments do not target my fundamentals. Nor does my ranting about mine target yours. The next argumentative move I'm supposed to make is argue that your evolutionary argument does not work here and use that defend the earlier theory. In the end though I do not think that will do any of us any good.

We do not seem to be properly able to understand eachother's positions. This leads to some awkward arguments being made, like:

Drustai wrote:No, at some deep fundamental level they don't know. Because they haven't been taught that.

This does not work on me because I claim that the knowledge of good and evil is innate. It isn't something that is taught. This is an argument you make against somebody who subscribes to the blank slate theory, like you do.

I'm quite sure I have made wierd arguments and slip-ups like that, too. I think we've quite exhausted this argument now. I do not think I have anything of value left to bring to the table here. If I failed to get my point across, then that's a pity. I see that as a personal failure.

Edit: To Sanara;

Sanara wrote:
(1) A lot of what we define as "Good" or "Evil" is also indoctrinated into us - (2) but that's only half the truth.

I agree that how we define good and evil is indoctrinated into us or otherwise rationalized, repressing natural notions of good and evil. I'd rather call them innate notinos than instincts, but you could argue that's flavor. I agree that what we normally believe to be good and evil is mostly a social product. And that's the key word. Product. It is produced.

So, while I agree with 1, I disagree with 2. This fabricated isn't a truth, or a half-truth. There's no such thing is half of the truth. There's the truth, and then there's the non-truth. While these social morals may be completely coherent and remain logical within themselves, they are at the end mere shadows of the truth, to speak in Platonic terms.

That about summarizes my point of view quite nicely. Thanks for the opportunity, Sanara.

Philosophical discussions on the nature of evil aside. I think Amaryl's main point lies in some things you mentioned Thelos:

...What you think to be good depends on your character's morals...
...have simply rationalized and justified it to themselves...
..."For the greater good" is one of the most common rationalizations you'll hear.

These things here is what makes a believable evil character. Most of them will not choose to be evil. They will rationalise their deeds away and in many cases believe in their own rationalisations.
They don't choose to be evil, they are evil because how they choose to act. The simplest, most benefical and most practical choices towards their goal. But the goal is often the same as those good people have. Many authorian figures dream of peace, they'll just force everyone into it. Many archetypical inquisitors of a just and moral society, they'll just scourge everything wicked away.
These are evil people, but they hardly think so themselves. "Is it evil to make the empire safe for millions of people"-type of figures. Or they don't ascribe to the thoughts of good and evil. "There is no good or evil, there is only dreams and those strong enough to take it" - sort of rationalisations.

Or in very rare cases, people who are slaves of their own whims. People who fly into murderous rampages. Who feel an addictive urge to hurt. Of people willing to do anything just to get their hands on the next dose of drugs. They might be evil as well (but don't have to be) and might actually believe they are evil... but they can't help it. They don't choose it.

And that's sort of the argument. Noone makes a concious choice to be evil. They don't go: "I have to kill someone today, or else I won't be evil enough". They kill someone if it benefits them or advances their plans somehow, but not for it's own sake. They might even feel regret, but would do the same thing if given the chance to redo it.

Basically... evil is either a consequence of a whim or rationalised away. A means but not an end in itself.

Drustai wrote:

Amaryl wrote:
So What is "Good" depends on your character's morals

No. What you think to be good depends on your character's morals. What actually is good is independant of any one human and wholly objective.

This I do agree with.

Is "What actually is good" in any shape a question that humans can answer if they see good and evil "through" their morals?
That is like two people discussing the colors used in a painting, but they have seen the painting through different color filters.

Thelos wrote:
So, while I agree with 1, I disagree with 2. This fabricated isn't a truth, or a half-truth. There's no such thing is half of the truth. There's the truth, and then there's the non-truth. While these social morals may be completely coherent and remain logical within themselves, they are at the end mere shadows of the truth, to speak in Platonic terms.

I remember a quote from a teacher "There are three truths, your truth, my truth and THE truth.". Your truth and my truth can be parts of THE truth (of our observation).
You have six people, they all save something the others didn't.
Person 1 saw a square object with a dot in the center.
Person 2 saw a square object with two dots.
Person 3 saw a square object with three dots.
Person 4 saw a square object with four dots.
Person 5 saw a square object with five dots.
Person 6 saw a square object with six dots.
This means there were either 6 different objects, or they saw different sides of the same thing.

Spoiler:

If person 1 said "it's an object with 1 dot", then that would be false from the perspective of THE truth. But true from the perspective of person 1.

I remember a quote from a teacher "There are three truths, your truth, my truth and THE truth."

If memory serves this is actually a Chinese saying. That aside, I'd just like to say you guys are having a great discussion on a decent level, to say the least.

To be fair, Chinese have a lot of good sayings.

To Kristeas:

Kristeas wrote:That is like two people discussing the colors used in a painting, but they have seen the painting through different color filters.

Yes it is. And I argued that because of that neither of them know the true color of the painting.

Kristeas wrote:Dat Dice

Yes, but no matter how many people look and interpet it in different ways, that's still a six-sided die. The thing in itself remains as it is, whether it is possible for humans to completely know the thing as it is in itself is another question. The thing will be the thing regardless of anything the human intellect has to bring to the table.

This is ultimately very harsh, yes, I do admit that. I do not think Humans come across the truth very often to say the least. It is the same for good and evil.

To Galhalla:

Gahalla wrote:. Noone makes a concious choice to be evil.

I disagree. It may be rare and completely bathsit insane, but it is not impossible.

Gahalla wrote: A means but not an end in itself.

As I have argued, good and evil are either end in themselves or not at all. They cannot be means to an end, for if they are, they aren't proper or pure good and evil at all.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I will now stop discussing philosophy, since I feel like we have derailed too far from the point. I want to thank Galhalla for trying to push us back to that original question. Are purely evil characters engaging, fun, complex and deep, or lazy and shallow? If we disconnect this question completely from the question whether it is actually possible to be purely evil or good, can we still awnser it properly? I will try to give you my awnser.

I love purely evil characters. This is because love purely good characters even more. They're a delight to have around and can be an absolute blast to play and write. I think they serve as an important storytelling tool too. I like to use the Joker from the Batman comics as an example. Modern incarnations tend to make his history "multiple choice", as the villain himself said in The Killing Joke. In the Dark Knight, he is often described as pure chaos, anarchy, a force of nature. Is this a compelling character? Is it a deep character? I say yes to both questions. The depth with characters like this comes from their interaction with other characters that either represent another ideal or are somewhere in between. I really loved some of the dialogue of between the Joker and Two-Face especially. And the closing dialogue between the Joker and Batman in the killing joke is classic. I wouldn't call that shallow material at all. The depth doesn't come from an expansive psychological profile describing the character's motivations, but rather, from the clashing of ideas. Debate. Questions about human nature

Motivations, history, a complete psychological profile describing a character's every action...Yes, this is a form of depth to be sure. It is not the only way to add depth to your characters and story, though, and the thing that bothers me the most is people seem to beforehand conclude that characters that haven't had their psycholgical profile troughouly expanded and mapped out are by definition shallow. It is like the heroes of ancient greek tragedy and epics: the actual history and biography of the characters isn't what adds the depth. In fact, the audience was expected to know the whole mythology beforehand. The ent3ertanment didn't come from plot twists or developments. Everybody already knew how Ajax would end before it even started.

It is the struggles between ideals and the clashing of identities that make the tragedy. How have Achilles and Ajax become such proud and heroic individuals? Because they were destined to. There's nothing else to it - this is the way they are. They're personalities and ethics are a given. This is their character. You already know how the plot ends. Now here's the drama that is a consequence from these two things.

Maybe another good comparision is between Superman and Captain America on the one hand, and Batman and Spider-Man on the other. In the latter two, the emphasis is on the character's psyche, history and development. On the former two, it is on ideals and ethics. Superman in particular deals with themes like responsibility and power. Superman's heroic destiny is a given; the conflict that are a result of that are what drives the story. Batman is in many ways his tragic background. His motivation and psyche is the driving force behind the plot. Revenge, parenthood and dealing with loss are often central themes of Batman stories. In a way, Superman and Captain America are closer to ancient greek epics and tragedy, while Batman and Spider-Man are more modern characters. Now, do we consider Batman and Spider-Man to be the deeper and more engaging characters? Some of you might say yes. I wont, though. I'd say it is a different kind of depth. A different way of storytelling. Both valid, both deep.

Note that I am talking about comics in general. In comics though there are always exceptions to the trend, stories where the characters are approached from another direction and the focus shifts. This is part of what makes comics so awesome.

TL;DR - Is character depth something that can only be created by exploring a character's psyche and history in an attempt to explain his behavior, or is it possible for a character to be deep without the audience knowing any of these things?

The difference imo is:

do you want to create and roleplay a character of flesh and blood. 3 dimensional so to speak.

or

do you want a 2D cardboard paper character.

the former is far more interresting, both to roleplay as, and to roleplay with, since there's just more depth in it.

the later will serve fine for the purpose it was intended, but can't actually become very engaging.

and imo, exploring the total extend of a characters morality is the fun thing about it. where do they draw the line, what is the path they do no want to cross. and what happens if they do cross it? involuntary or voluntary?

that's the cross-section of rp that to me, is the most interresting to experience. both on the outside as on the inside.

but if you just need a cultist or a do-gooder, your simple D&D/fantasybooks archetypes will do finely.

Do you want character driven RP or Plot driven RP?

Thelos wrote: It is the struggles between ideals and the clashing of identities that make the tragedy. How have Achilles and Ajax become such proud and heroic individuals? Because they were destined to. There's nothing else to it - this is the way they are. They're personalities and ethics are a given. This is their character. You already know how the plot ends. Now here's the drama that is a consequence from these two things.

Destiny is the most boring and unoriginal story concept there can be. I cringe any time I see a potentially good story ruined thanks to 'he's the chosen one!'. It's a cop-out, a method of getting around actually coming up with a real story.

I prefer seeing characters who actually got to where they are through a rational story, not 'just 'cause'.

Maybe another good comparision is between Superman and Captain America on the one hand, and Batman and Spider-Man on the other. In the latter two, the emphasis is on the character's psyche, history and development. On the former two, it is on ideals and ethics. Superman in particular deals with themes like responsibility and power. Superman's heroic destiny is a given; the conflict that are a result of that are what drives the story. Batman is in many ways his tragic background. His motivation and psyche is the driving force behind the plot. Revenge, parenthood and dealing with loss are often central themes of Batman stories. In a way, Superman and Captain America are closer to ancient greek epics and tragedy, while Batman and Spider-Man are more modern characters. Now, do we consider Batman and Spider-Man to be the deeper and more engaging characters? Some of you might say yes. I wont, though. I'd say it is a different kind of depth. A different way of storytelling. Both valid, both deep.

Captain American, and especially Superman, are both boring as a result. Batman and Spiderman are far more interesting, because they have depth.

TL;DR - Is character depth something that can only be created by exploring a character's psyche and history in an attempt to explain his behavior, or is it possible for a character to be deep without the audience knowing any of these things?

It's possible to not know these things to specifically highlight a character's current traits--especially villains, as it makes them more menacing to just 'come out of nowhere'. That being said, I wouldn't go so far as to say such a character doesn't actually have a background, just that it is more beneficial for the story to not describe it (rather than say it doesn't exist at all). The Joker is more menacing because his backstory isn't described--it doesn't mean he doesn't have one at all.

As a writer I always give such backstories in my own notes, even if I don't describe them. Because I need to know how this character became who he is, it adds depth and rationale. As a literary element I can see the benefit in keeping that backstory hidden and away from the main story, but that doesn't mean that character doesn't have a backstory.

And heroes, especially, need backstories, because they're not supposed to be hidden from you. They're your eyes and ears into the world of the story. A villain becomes more menacing if you don't know who he is or where you're from, while a hero just lacks depth if he 'comes out of nowhere'.

I love purely evil characters. This is because love purely good characters even more. They're a delight to have around and can be an absolute blast to play and write. I think they serve as an important storytelling tool too.

See above. I love purely evil characters whose backstories aren't described as a way to make them more menacing. Doesn't mean they don't actually have a history and a reason for how they became that way.

It is like the heroes of ancient greek tragedy and epics: the actual history and biography of the characters isn't what adds the depth. In fact, the audience was expected to know the whole mythology beforehand. The ent3ertanment didn't come from plot twists or developments. Everybody already knew how Ajax would end before it even started.

Thank you for proving my point. The actual stuff did exist. Just because a story decides not to show it for literary benefit, does not mean it is not there. In that case it's like a sequel to a novel... the origin story was already elaborated previously, so continued works do not need to re-mention it except for when dramatically important.

There is not a drop of destiny in the Illiad. Some things become pre-ordained by command of the gods, but this is never just due to abstract destiny. Achilles weeps to his mother, (Zeus's former lover) who then goes to zeus and pleads for him. Zeus then orders that the Mycenaean's (greeks) Will not be sucessful until Achilles Fights.

But this is not destiny as such, the gods tried all sorts of tricks to over come this. In the end it was Achilles cousins/lovers death that gets him back into the fight.

The Point is that it is more the will of the gods being expressed than destiny as we understand it. (ie will occure what ever)

The Greeks also had a belief of a heaven and a hell for their glorious dead and those who failed attheeir society. In most civilizations with this kind of belief system "free will" is believed also. With out it a fella can be born to be damned dispite all his efforts. (It is worth noting that some of the more recient forms of Christianity believe that this is not the case such as Calvinists.)

Drustai wrote:
Captain American, and especially Superman, are both boring as a result. Batman and Spiderman are far more interesting, because they have depth.

Well at last the fruits of our different views show themselves in actual, tangible form. I never liked Batman and I always found Spider-Man to be horribly tedious and boring. If this is because those characters are "deeper" than Superman and Captain America then I guess I do not much care for depth, more accurately, I do not think depth always improves a story.

Either that or I have a different idea of what constitutes character depth all together.

Drustai wrote:
That being said, I wouldn't go so far as to say such a character doesn't actually have a background, just that it is more beneficial for the story to not describe it (rather than say it doesn't exist at all).

Yes all right, important distinction you make here. There's actual background and narrative background. I'd tend to see actual background as irrelevant when discussing fiction. It is more of a negative tool to create open spaces for the reader to project themselves in. So basicly the only backstory I want to consider relevant in fiction is the one that is given to the reader.

Drustai wrote:
Thank you for proving my point. The actual stuff did exist. Just because a story decides not to show it for literary benefit, does not mean it is not there. In that case it's like a sequel to a novel... the origin story was already elaborated previously, so continued works do not need to re-mention it except for when dramatically important.

I wasn't trying to say it didn't exist, I was using this as an example of a case where a backstory is given and it still isn't very relevant to the plot nor adds much to the depth of the characters. In fact, in mythology there were usually several different competing backstories for a character, just like in comics. And they were all just as valid for the audience who went down to see Ajax. My point was that Ajax's behavior and thoughts in that play do not actually depend on that backstory for their meaning and relevance.

The depth usually comes from the struggle between a character's perception of the self and some outside force that threatens this. Where this self came from, how it was created, these things do not really mater. It is not what contitutes the depth of a character.

Lexgrad wrote:There is not a drop of destiny in the Illiad. Some things become pre-ordained by command of the gods, but this is never just due to abstract destiny.

You either read a different version than I did or I feel like you're doing a much too modern reading. I'm not even sure what you mean with abstract destiny. Destiny is such a key aspect of Achilles' character that he can not be really understood without it. Lynchpin to his struggle is basicly:

"Alas! If I stay to fight in Troy I will die a hero, but if I return home I will live a long unheroic life!"

This is the Achilles from the Illiad of course, I haven't read much other works that use the character, but I do think Homer's version is the most well known one. Also note that prophercies always come true in the Illiad, whether they're self-fulfilling or not.

I feel like you're attempting to explain destiny away because you do not like it much (judging from your choice of words "inkling of" and assuming you agree with Drustai that destiny is a lazy mechanic), and you want to like the Illiad. I wouldn't recommend that. Is is a monumental work because it deals with these kinds of themes, not in spite of.

The point I've been trying to make with the Achilles and Ajax comparisons is that the narrative is pretty much "This is their character, deal with it" and doesn't care much to go into detail how they have become such characters and personalities. Especially in Ajax. Yet, their characters are deep and compelling.

Lexgrad wrote:The Greeks also had a belief of a heaven and a hell for their glorious dead and those who failed at theeir society. In most civilizations with this kind of belief system "free will" is believed also.

Free will and destiny do not exclude one another, even though that might sound counterintuitive. The Greeks acknowledged both. Heck, Oedipus Rex is exactly about this struggle between free will and destiny, and how we humans deal with it. It is a source of great drama.

Thelos wrote:I disagree. It may be rare and completely bathsit insane, but it is not impossible.

Again, this falls into the category of: "Ah, tuesday. Murder day" or "I have to kill you. No real reason why, but you have to die". There's no reason or logic behind it. You cite insanity as a possible avenue for this, I'd say that the insane don't choose or have insane reasons. Wether that is murderous rampages or paranoid hallucinations, matters not. They don't choose to be evil, they just are (mind, insane people don't have to be evil).
That said... that doesn't mean us sane people understand their reasons (they are insane after all).

Essentially: You don't do and think evil because you are evil, you're evil because you do and think evil. You don't go "Hmm... I want to be evil. I guess I'll have to burn down the orphanage". That sounds more like a teenager that has gotten it into his head to rebel against the ethics of society ("I'll kill people! That'll show them moralists! They don't know what I'm going through!").

Maybe people are evil due to their passions, maybe it's due to their cold ruthlessness, maybe it's their greed, maybe they get an emotional kick out of it, maybe they're just angry or maybe they just don't care. In all those cases there's reasons behind it.
Anything else is sort of just "I'm evil... therefore I have to do evil" or "The heroes are decorating a christmas tree! I have to burn it down! Because I'm the villain!". It makes no sense whatsoever and is about as deep as a puddle. Sure, works for a one-shot villain on the highway to the chopping block. Not so much for deep and engaging rp.

You list a number of heroes in your discussion and while you make good points... they're heroes, not villains. Good and evil work differently. If we look at their villainous counterparts, we see different things.
You take the Dark Knight joker as an example of an evil individual with no reasons. The Dark Knight joker has plenty of reasons. He's a bonehard anarchist that wants to prove that one cannot and shouldn't stop crime, because he deeply believes that humanity is vile creatures that will rip one another apart. Insane? Oh yes. But he has reasons.
You mention superman, thus let's look at Lex Luthor. While he's often a comic book villain, he's also often depicted as the absolutely insanely ruthless megalomanic businessman or the man who absolutely hates the notion of someone inherently superior to everyone else (superman). Both reasons behind his evil.

That's what has been argued. While a "evil for the sake of evil" villain can be good for one-shots. It's not particularly deep individuals and sort of only exist to provide success/adventures for the heroes.

Thelos wrote:
As I have argued, good and evil are either end in themselves or not at all. They cannot be means to an end, for if they are, they aren't proper or pure good and evil at all.

Good is something you can do for no other reason than to do right. Mostly because there's an altruism associated with good (mind, you can do good for egoistic reasons too... and most would never be able to tell the difference). Good is good because it's the right thing to do. And a lot of people recognice that.
Like you say, I don't think good as such is very subjective. Good tend to be rather uniform across all cultures. It's always about helping others, not hurting and similar. Why that is, doesn't really matter for the sake of this discussion.

Evil however. You claim there's no "proper evil" if it's means to an end. So if I start executing my political opponents (real or imagined) and their families en masse I'm not doing proper evil? Because I'm just doing it to secure my own political position? What am I doing then? Pseudo-evil?
That the only way for there to be pure evil is to rationally and calmly decide "I'm evil. Let's see what wicked deeds I can cook up to advance the position of an abstract notion"? (yes, there's some hyperbole there).

Mostly because... you don't gain anything from evil as such. While doing good does (mind that a lot people probably doesn't do good to gain something in return), there's no inherent gain from hurting someone. To do evil for the sake of evil is pointless, a waste of time and will only lead to an early grave.
Insane people might get a kick from it... but that's a reason. Then they're doing evil to feel good. Not because it's evil, but for the thrill, the rush and the release. It's a reason. There is a gain.
Then there's the ruthless, who do evil to achieve a gain. Maybe a political purge. Maybe a war. Maybe slavery. Those that don't feel particularly much in terms of regret and do it because it's convenient.
Then there's the passionate. The ones who burn so much for a cause that they do evil in the pursuit. Putting innocents to the pyre to weed out immorality. Force convert and then kill to save their souls. Burn down all of Paris to prevent crime.

All those are evil. All those have reasons to be evil. In all cases it's a consequence of the means, not the end.

Gahalla wrote:Mostly because... you don't gain anything from evil as such. While doing good does (mind that a lot people probably doesn't do good to gain something in return), there's no inherent gain from hurting someone.

This I fiercely and passionately disagree with on an ideological level. If you gain something from doing good, you're not doing good, you're helping yourself. Good as a means to get something you want is not good at all. It is the same for evil, because they are two sides of the same coin. One cannot exist without the other, ying-yang yadda yadda badaboom.

You do not gain or loose anything from doing good for good.
You do not gain or loose anything from doing evil for evil either.

If you argue that in either case you do, then I will just argue again and again that it is not pure evil or good that is at play here. Good and evil cannot be a means to any thing, because if they are, they're not really good and evil.

Galhalla wrote:Good is something you can do for no other reason than to do right. Mostly because there's an altruism associated with good (mind, you can do good for egoistic reasons too... and most would never be able to tell the difference).

No. There is no "because". If there's an altruism associated with good then you are doing it for the principle of altruism, not for good. Then you are doing it for some concrete principle derived from the abstract truth of the Good, not the Good in itself. It is somehting that transcends rationale and reason, and is more a kin to an act of faith than ratio.

Galhalla wrote:You cite insanity as a possible avenue for this, I'd say that the insane don't choose or have insane reasons. Wether that is murderous rampages or paranoid hallucinations, matters not. They don't choose to be evil, they just are (mind, insane people don't have to be evil).

No. You are insane because you are evil. Not the other way around. The evil is primary, any reasons, biological or biographical are secondary.

It is a logical possiblity that one can do evil for the sake of evil and it doesn't matter how many examples or counterexamples are presented at the end of the day because that does not effect affect logical possiblity.

Your treatment of the Joker simply shows that you do consider the evil to be secondary to the reasons. I feel we have sunk to the depths of a simple "Uh-uh, nuh-uh, uh-uh, nuh-uh" debate now. I say one thing, somebody else negates it, nobody gives any arguments. I consider the evil primary and the reasons secondary. It is obvious you consider it to be the other way around. And with good reasons, I'm sure, just not of the kind that can convince me to change my point of view.

The following quote gives me an opportunity to expand on another hidden fundamental innate to my reasoning. The inter-subjectivity of reasons.

Galhalla wrote:You take the Dark Knight joker as an example of an evil individual with no reasons. The Dark Knight joker has plenty of reasons. He's a bonehard anarchist that wants to prove that one cannot and shouldn't stop crime because he deeply believes that humanity is vile creatures that will rip one another apart.

No. There is no such thing as a character without reasons, because reasons will always be projected onto something by the audience. Real life works like that too; we always analyse another person's behavior by projecting reasons on to them. If we do not we cannot understand their behavior properly. Yes, this means I believe reasons to be inter-subjective. We use reasons to predict another's behavior, and because of the way we are raised we also come to be in an inter-personal relationship with ourselves, when we are asked to justify our own behaviors using reasons. They're just constructs, though, fabrications that are always faulty. How often do we believe we do something for one reasons, only to have it turn out we are doing it for another? I do not think a savage completely cut off from civlization and other intelligent contact since birth will be able to understand the concept of Reasons. He simply is. Like most things that are not humans, of which we all too often make the mistake of ascibing reasons and motivations to.

I used the Joker from the Dark Knight as an example of a character where the reasons do not matter at all, as in, do not create extra depth or explain the character's actions or motivations Why does the Joker believe what he believes? We do not know. Nor do we care. It does not add any depth to the character. It is a belief that is simply a given. "Here's an anarchist" the creator says. "Okay, cool" the audience responds. Why is it given to this character? Because the character is evil, that's why. Evil comes first, reasons and logic come second.

Long story short:

Reasons are overrated. Not everything in the human behavior should or can be fully explained with logic and reasons. On one hand, there's acting upon faith, which is by definition not motivated by reasons or logic. On the other, there's the element of unpredictability and chaos, brought forth by the gray areas of inter-subjectivity. We cannot ever fully understand why a character does what he does. We can only guess. And I'm guessing that it is this guessing itself what most people experience as depth: the posibility to search a work of fiction for extra meaning inthe open spaces. Just like we do in real life with real persons.

If that is what depth is then I concede that evil for the sake of evil and good for the sake of good is shallow. That's fair. Then I will just have to re-evaluate depth and change my statement from "Reasons are overrated" to "Depth is overrated", and "Purely evil characters / purely good characters are not shallow" to "Purely evil characters / purely good characters are shallow, but compelling regardless".