Gary Gygax's thoughts on the Books of Vile Darkness and Erotic Fantasy

[veekie]

Evil lies in how you approach these things. With a maximum of suffering to others and a minimum of cost to you and yours.

When your friends are threatened, you would be willing to disregard everything else, no mercy, no means spared, in order to save them. If you had to conquer the world and publicly torture all the offenders to death as a deterrence, so be it.

If your course is justice, you dole it out through pain, fear and death. It may be a Good cause, but pursued through Evil means. An Evil man's solution to world hunger may be to kill all the excess population and then institute a strict regimen of birth control ensuring plenty for everyone else. He is not incapable of subtlety or care, he just considers the cost to anything not within his sphere of interest to be negligible.

[InnaBinder]

Evil lies in how you approach these things. With a maximum of suffering to others and a minimum of cost to you and yours.

When your friends are threatened, you would be willing to disregard everything else, no mercy, no means spared, in order to save them. If you had to conquer the world and publicly torture all the offenders to death as a deterrence, so be it.

If your course is justice, you dole it out through pain, fear and death. It may be a Good cause, but pursued through Evil means. An Evil man's solution to world hunger may be to kill all the excess population and then institute a strict regimen of birth control ensuring plenty for everyone else. He is not incapable of subtlety or care, he just considers the cost to anything not within his sphere of interest to be negligible.

Agreed on all points except subtlety; evil is quite capable of subtlety, unless the situation needs evil to be shown in the broadest possible strokes, like Snively Whiplash or similarly cartoonish versions of evil.  Subtlety is often key to long-term strategy.

[Unbeliever]

Evil lies in how you approach these things. With a maximum of suffering to others and a minimum of cost to you and yours.

When your friends are threatened, you would be willing to disregard everything else, no mercy, no means spared, in order to save them. If you had to conquer the world and publicly torture all the offenders to death as a deterrence, so be it.
...

This doesn't seem right.  Meaning these are neither necessary nor sufficient conditions for "evil," especially in a fantasy/heroic fiction sense.  It equates evil with ruthlessness, perhaps extreme cases of ruthlessness. 

But, the Galactic Empire, Sauron, Randall Flagg, Cersei, and Melnibonean Chaos aren't just ruthless.  Their motivations are broadly evil, in some cases apocalyptic.  Sauron (and Morgoth before him) desires domination and corruption of life/creation that he did not himself shape.  Flagg and Chaos want to unmake the world.  We're far and away from them using unpleasant means to reach their ends.  Although, of course, they do that, too. 

I think what I'm trying to point out is this.  There's a fundamental difference, from a storytelling and game playing perspective, in the way you treat protagonists and antagonists.  It's really hard to play a protagonist that has a goal like "unmake the world" or "corruption" full stop.  You'd need more of a backstory and a justification for that.  I've tried time and again -- but none of my Settite or Baali concepts really work like that, at least not for any extended period of time.  So, your aspiring evil overlord is going to need some sort of justification or internal logic, i.e., something that gives his motivations a handle for the player to hold onto.  A villain or antagonist doesn't need that sort of thing. 

But, once the PC has a set of intelligible and sensible motivations, then the evilness of the character is a question of means or fashion sense.  You're playing a Punisher or an Azrael (of Batman fame) or arguably an Elric.  I in no way am trying to imply that playing such a character isn't 9 flavors of awesome.  But, it's a far cry from the archetype of evil that is the subject of BoVD or Fiendish Codexes, and so on.  There's a lot of daylight between Azrael and Sauron or Iago.  Even MacBeth, a great and grim protagonist, is a far cry from evil in that sense.

[veekie]

Evil lies in how you approach these things. With a maximum of suffering to others and a minimum of cost to you and yours.

When your friends are threatened, you would be willing to disregard everything else, no mercy, no means spared, in order to save them. If you had to conquer the world and publicly torture all the offenders to death as a deterrence, so be it.

If your course is justice, you dole it out through pain, fear and death. It may be a Good cause, but pursued through Evil means. An Evil man's solution to world hunger may be to kill all the excess population and then institute a strict regimen of birth control ensuring plenty for everyone else. He is not incapable of subtlety or care, he just considers the cost to anything not within his sphere of interest to be negligible.

Agreed on all points except subtlety; evil is quite capable of subtlety, unless the situation needs evil to be shown in the broadest possible strokes, like Snively Whiplash or similarly cartoonish versions of evil.  Subtlety is often key to long-term strategy.

Double negation

In the case of evil, you can have entirely evil goals too. But why do you do it is just as important. You want to rule the world because of ambition. You want to destroy the world because of jealousy(in Sauron's case). These are understandable driving emotions. You can gain friends and travel with them loyally, ultimately with your true goal in mind, with a minimum of harm to your friends(though not excluding them if it cannot be avoided).

[caelic]

That being said, I happen to find BoVD pretty prurient all told.  I'm not against exploring ultra-evil in D&D.  Great heroes need great villains.  But, they seemed be going for some combination of titillating and squick factors that I don't find particularly compelling.  Hence, prurient.  BoVD, not in its entirety but at many points, has always struck me as kind of childish; viz. Nipple Clamps of Exquisite Pain and that wacky rod thingy made out of tongues.  Although I haven't really read through it in a while.

I'd contrast that with the Fiendish Codexes and Elder Evils.  All three books deal with evil and so on.  But, I think they focus on the right parts for a game -- useful stuff for constructing plots and stories, etc. rather than titillation b/c it's so evil or what have you -- and also just seem better put together.  I find the FCs in particular a gold mine for adventure and encounter ideas.

I have to second this pretty much wholesale.  I honestly found both the execution of both the BoVD and the BoED to be pretty puerile.  Does anyone really rely on either book for advice on how to run an evil/good character?  Did anyone need the sort of advice they were offering?  About the only time I see anything from either book employed, it's the more-broken bits of crunch being used--not the advice.

[Agrippa]

I'm not defending the BoVD, I'm just saying that it seems funny that Gygax came out against the idea of a source book for evil. That sid, I do agree that the BoVD is puerile garbage and for the most part is best forgetten. Just like the film version of League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, which Gygax also agrees on.

[ariasderros]

That being said, I happen to find BoVD pretty prurient all told.  I'm not against exploring ultra-evil in D&D.  Great heroes need great villains.  But, they seemed be going for some combination of titillating and squick factors that I don't find particularly compelling.  Hence, prurient.  BoVD, not in its entirety but at many points, has always struck me as kind of childish; viz. Nipple Clamps of Exquisite Pain and that wacky rod thingy made out of tongues.  Although I haven't really read through it in a while.

I'd contrast that with the Fiendish Codexes and Elder Evils.  All three books deal with evil and so on.  But, I think they focus on the right parts for a game -- useful stuff for constructing plots and stories, etc. rather than titillation b/c it's so evil or what have you -- and also just seem better put together.  I find the FCs in particular a gold mine for adventure and encounter ideas.

I have to second this pretty much wholesale.  I honestly found both the execution of both the BoVD and the BoED to be pretty puerile.  Does anyone really rely on either book for advice on how to run an evil/good character?  Did anyone need the sort of advice they were offering?  About the only time I see anything from either book employed, it's the more-broken bits of crunch being used--not the advice.

I occasionally do. I wouldn't say I "need" it or "rely" on it, but I do use it from time to time. Some of it I temper with a grain of salt (poison is evil because of undue suffering, as I stab you) and common sense.

But reading through them for guidelines on Good and Evil (and the Champions of Valor / Ruin) is sometimes useful to help reiterate that Good & Evil in D&D are not philosophy, but universal powers with their own rules, that at times have less to do with our views on the subjects than some would think. It also helps in other ways. I have brought in a Bardic-based build that I plan to eventually have take Words of Creation ("more-broken bits of crunch being used") into a party that is mostly evil. When some of the other players were worried that I might become the "babysitter" or the "morality pet", I brought out the BoED, and read out some of the more pertinent parts on Good working with Evil (under "Ends and Means" on page 9 and "Relationships" on page 10).

[midnight_v]

"I think its real funny how everybody talks about me like I'm some good and noble hero of the realms"
Damont Takes a swig.
"Of course, if some Eeevil Muthafuckin' Necromancer start cranking Ghouls 'n Shit out the local parish, farmlands, or brothel I'm gon' have to end that shit post-haste.
Damont takes a sip.
"Fuckery of that type don't add to my dranking, nor the immediate likelyhood of me getting behind or on top of some young preistess, princess, or barmaid. Which I also intend to do, post-haste"
Damont takes a large gulp, wipes his mouth, and stare thoughtfully in his mug before continuing.
"...If we sitting here... and godsdamned Red Dragon tear da' roof off this muthafucka.  Burning tables and, torching aged brandy left and right, what choice is there? Ain't no choice, there. All, I can do is finish my drank. Unsheath Twankle and Glisten, and get dead off on it's ass. Until such time I'm allowed to get back to what I was doing.
Damont takes a swig.
-Damnot D'juan (overheard at the bar of the Stubbling Wolf Inn)

Read that in the same voice as Either 1 of these dudes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4UeHWPeOrA
------------------------------------
Evil. The problem is that there's not enough stratification of evil in the minds of D&D enthusists.
There is a Difference between Marcellus Wallace, Jules, and Vincent Vega... and Jeffery Dahmer, Hannibal lecter, and Pol Pot, all of whom are unequivically evil doers.
That difference ISN'T that they won't kill you and several people nearby without too much recourse, and then have drinks later. The difference is in how they play it. Goals, ambitions, and drives play a factor.

In games... in games I feel its a two-fold issue.
 1. Lack of Maturity: How well can this player handle being given the reigns of evil? Does that mean that in his downtime he's going to be silly like "While the magi are making magic items I think I'm going to go serial killing?" Or does it mean that the character breaks the batman code?
Most importantly, is he going to do something REALLY off the rungs and attack a party member. Are they going to attack him? What does evil mean to everyone in this party, can we handle it maturely. Does anyone get squicked?

2. Rarity: Since people aren't often allowed to write "Evil" on thier character sheet... a LOT of times people who DO get that chance want to play it up as EVIL as possible. Which honestly is what makes the BOVD SOOOO unsatisfying.
It really so much that the material is "poorly written" or that it written from a position of "Moral Incompetence" and to be sure It IS both of those things but mostly an OBNOXIOUS, and over the top evil.

Lastly, there a mechanical side to it as well.
Can I be hit with Smite?
Can I be Blashpemy Juggled.
Can I play as an assassin?

The thing is there are some OUT of Game considerations about the topic of evil, as well as some IN game considerations about being evil.

  Ultimately, its just a type of story, in fact it can be the SAME type of story as illustrated by my pet character Damon D'juan (who I created as a parody to poke fun at the forgotten realms setting).

The cure for evil isn't "good" but not being 1 dimensional characters.

[caelic]

But reading through them for guidelines on Good and Evil (and the Champions of Valor / Ruin) is sometimes useful to help reiterate that Good & Evil in D&D are not philosophy, but universal powers with their own rules, that at times have less to do with our views on the subjects than some would think. It also helps in other ways. I have brought in a Bardic-based build that I plan to eventually have take Words of Creation ("more-broken bits of crunch being used") into a party that is mostly evil. When some of the other players were worried that I might become the "babysitter" or the "morality pet", I brought out the BoED, and read out some of the more pertinent parts on Good working with Evil (under "Ends and Means" on page 9 and "Relationships" on page 10).

Sure, but here's the thing: it doesn't seem like they really thought through the implications of all that.   You could write a REALLY interesting book on the metaphysics of D&D and how they differ from the real world...but, IMO, they haven't written that book yet.   It doesn't even seem like they were consistent in their view of D&D morality.

Take that passage on page 10.  On the one hand, they allow for good characters working with evil characters in order to accomplish a worthy goal.  On the other hand, just a few paragraphs before that, they advocate the idea that a character who is willing to compromise their own moral purity to achieve some great good is acting in an evil fashion, and a character who refuses to accomplish that great good in order to preserve his or her own moral purity and righteousness is acting in a good fashion.

I don't know about you, but to me, "I'd rather let the hostages die than bribe this evil person to tell me where they are, because bribery would compromise my morals!" comes across as amazingly self-centered and self-righteous.  It's a comic-book caricature of good--yet it seems to be precisely what they advocate on page 10.  Of course, then they turn around and say "...but it's okay to associate with evil characters who may be pursuing evil ends, just as long as you don't actually SEE them doing evil and it advances your own goals."  Seems very inconsistent.

[DonQuixote]

I find the Book of Erotic Fantasy embarrassing.  I have never looked at it, and I never will.  If a player were ever to ask me to allow it, I would take them aside and ask what they wanted.  If they just want to play a sex-o-mancer, we're going to have a more serious talk.  If they're actually interested in seriously and maturely exploring certain aspects of a character, I'll work with them to figure out how to bring these things into a game.  But there is no reason to cast a spell that gives someone an erection.

The Book of Vile Darkness...well, it tries.  It's rather silly, though, all told.  When you have "the heart of an elf child" listed as a material component, it's really hard to take a book seriously.  Some of the rules can be useful--warp touch, for instance--but the book as a whole sort of misses the target, as far as I'm concerned.

On the topic of evil PCs, I have to disagree with the assessment that it's non-viable.  Granted, the only real experience that I have is the evil campaign I ran last year, but it went pretty well.  The party members weren't focused on evil for evil's sake--they all had reasons for their place on the moral spectrum.  Cassius was an aasimar who had fallen further and further into darkness as he sought a cure for his wife's degenerative disease--and, eventually, for a way to bring her soul back.  Quina, in addition to being the classiest character ever, was an inquisitive necromancer who saw no reason to let morality stand in the way of knowledge--even as she was slowly twisted into a creature of madness.  Ilxariol had been thrust into unreality by a failed magical experiment, causing her mind to fracture into three different consciousnesses.  Rin was a young girl who had been mauled and transformed into a ghoul, and her rotting brain slowly drained away more and more of her reasoning.  Click-clickity-fucking-click (rough transliteration) was a thri-kreen slaver and taskmaster who aspired to advance in a society built on cruelty and cunning.  Buddy was an amnesiac half-ogre who did whatever he was told--no matter who was telling him.

Their goal was not to end the world, but rather to stop the world from unraveling.  While the gods slumbered, the mortal forces of good learned that they could kill the gods of evil.  Not knowing that this was directly contributing to the deterioration of reality--assuming, instead, that the manifestations of that deterioration were last-ditch efforts by EVIL--they were steps away from successfully purging the cosmos of evil...causing the Far Realm to devour all of existence.  Evil doesn't have to want the end of the world.  Hell, if the world ends, the evil people go with it.  For individual reasons--admittedly, in the case of Click-clickity-fucking-click, a large paycheck--these morally questionable figures came together to keep the world whole.

It's all in how the campaign is structured.  The goals of evil can be made interesting--even, technically, a good thing.  This may involve a little bending of the "elemental evil vs. elemental good" paradigm, but not much.  Just as a group of good-aligned characters isn't necessarily made up of saints, a group of evil-aligned characters doesn't have to sow destruction in its wake.

[awaken_D_M_golem]

Thats a lot. Apparently, as I'm the apparent chosen voice of evil here on the boards...

  ... you , and that Harpy with the Courtney Love template.

[awaken_D_M_golem]

... wacky rod thingy made out of tongues ...

Baleful Polymorph Item , with a little more detailed fluff text than usual.

[Libertad]

Don't forget the in-depth rules for sacrificing people!  If the NPC's a virgin, you get a bonus!

Also, one of the Devil-worshiping PrCs requires the player to "take part in a disgusting, humiliating sexual ritual with a bunch of participants."

Something tells me I shouldn't play in Monte Cook's games...

[Sinfire Titan]

I find it humorous that the BoVD is supposed to be, in-universe, the ultimate guide to villainy and evil, only for the real thing to be cartoonish and bad at what it does.


Seriously, I got more mileage out of Exemplars of Evil than I did the BoVD, and at least Elder Evils tries to be intimidating (although you have to ignore the existence of Deities and Demigods for it to work).

[Libertad]

I find it humorous that the BoVD is supposed to be, in-universe, the ultimate guide to villainy and evil, only for the real thing to be cartoonish and bad at what it does.


Seriously, I got more mileage out of Exemplars of Evil than I did the BoVD, and at least Elder Evils tries to be intimidating (although you have to ignore the existence of Deities and Demigods for it to work).

Got no problem there, bro!

[awaken_D_M_golem]

The Blood War is evil fighting evil ; with
the subtext of: good thing they fight each
other, otherwise they'd overrun everybody.

Slaad ... have a hard time grouping together.

Modrons ... go out to beat the snot out of
anything they come across, because it's on
the schedule right here, no doubt about it.
See section 917, page 45, column B, item 6q ...

But the 2e Planescape guys were !@#$-ed
that the 3e "Good" planes never had holy wars
against each other.  Say like the old Holy Roman
Empire vs. The Vikings.  (medieval example)
That's LG vs. CG from the foundation of d&d.

[Libertad]

Wait, in 2nd Edition the Upper Planes went to war against each other?

Tell me more!

[caelic]

Also, one of the Devil-worshiping PrCs requires the player to "take part in a disgusting, humiliating sexual ritual with a bunch of participants."

Something tells me I shouldn't play in Monte Cook's games...

...or pledge a fraternity.

[Unbeliever]

@Midnight_v
That's not radically different than what I was saying, though, is it?  fwiw, I don't read it at such. 

@DonQuixote
You sort of illustrate one of the points I was trying to make.  I may have overstated the whole evil doesn't work as a long-running campaign thing.  Hell, I've run campaigns that are counterexamples to that.  But, as you pointed out, the motivations of your stipulatedly evil characters weren't all that evil.  And, they are a far cry from what you would think of as clearly "evil" villains -- for all their ruthlessness and disregard for morality, they were a far cry from Randall Flagg or Arioch. 

@Planescape
Planescape is awesome.  That's kind of all.  It's also wacky, madcap, and insane.  The idea of good and evil in that setting are ... special.  On the one hand, it at least really delves into the metahphysics of these things.  Good and evil are actual forces, as are law, chaos, and probably all sorts of things.  On the other hand, the notions of morality are so alien that it's hard to really think of them in terms of actual morality. 

[ariasderros]

Seems very inconsistent.

That was just my point with:

... that Good & Evil in D&D are not philosophy, but universal powers with their own rules, that at times have less to do with our views on the subjects than some would think.

It has its own, internal consistency. Primarily based on the fact that it isn't philosophical, but cosmic. It's not evil when the Evil people don't do something Evil in front of you, because of a universal "plausible deniability" wherein they didn't do something evil in front of you, so how can you know for sure that they did something evil elsewhere?

On the other hand, Evil is Evil, irregardless of the end result. To put it simply, the ends do not justify the means. That said, your example of bribe versus hostage is a lot more like their example of "slay Evil or honour love" wherein there is a moral quandary that either option is a little evil. Basically, you would need to try to find an "option C" if possible. In your example, you would most likely commit the bribe to get the hostages clear, then pursue Mr. Evil, slaying the bad guy and taking his stuff (as well as your stuff back).

But yeah, the point is that the consistency for the morals is a lot like the consistency for physics or any form of logic, internal to the system only. And sometimes, as above, you're screwed one way or another. Sometimes I reference those books to remind myself of that, as well as what the "internal morals" of the game are.

... All of which isn't as relevant as the fact that my post was in responce to your comment:

Does anyone really rely on either book for advice on how to run an evil/good character?  Did anyone need the sort of advice they were offering?  About the only time I see anything from either book employed, it's the more-broken bits of crunch being used--not the advice.

, and pointing out that there are some people, with myself as the example, that do use the books advice (or at least portions thereof), in addition to the crunch. You do not need to agree with my use thereof, nor my assessment thereof, you asked a question, and it was answered.

"Is there anyone who doesn't just use these books for power or being puerile?"
"Yes, me."