Odd thoughts about fiction

[Narf the Mouse]

This is a minor thing; I'm posting it because it's an interesting thought that's been going round my head.

There's an episode of btvs where Riley, expressing his utter inability to cope, sleeps with a vampire hooker, Spike finds out and shows Buffy.

And then there's the following scenes that show exactly why Riley is completely pathetic and one of the shows' minor villians, what with blaming his girlfriend for his failures, and yet she still loves him.

That doesn't bother me. It's in character - Although it does bother me that no-one ever wises up to Riley being pathetic, even when it's shoved in their face when he returns with a Buffy substitute.

But I'm getting off-track.

The scene that bothers me in an odd way is when she tracks down the vampire her boyfriend slep with, tells her to run and then throws a wooden pole through her chest as she's running away.

Which has always struck me as a murder. Buffy didn't kill her because she was a vampire and a danger, she killed her because 'that *****' slept with her boyfriend and wasn't human, so killing her was ok.

Before you tell me I'm off my rocker, btvs has pretty much established that, except for a one that was most likely an unrepeatable event, btvs vampires are evil, unredeemable and need to die.

No, my problem was that, if you take that scene solo, someone was killed, not for being an evil danger, but for being killable without consequences.

[Dinky]

This happens in all forms of fiction be it Sci-Fi, Fantasy, RPG's, TV or Movies where being green skinned or indeed foreign is reason enough for a bunch of heroes to kill you, your children, your pets, burn your hovel to the ground, score a hot bed warmer and get paid for it.

It is no different to the actions of man in the real world where once a person is given carte blanch in regards to their deeds and any possible repercussions humanity goes right out the window.

There have been countless experiments which prove that once people have official permission to harm their actions soon spiral out of control.

Taking this into account why would the tales we watch/read to amuse ourselves not contain our very core attributes and racial traits.

Humanity is far from humane.

[Susan Calvin]

I agree with that. Anyone who tried that with greenskins in ShadowRun would rather be labeled a deluded serial killer and thrown in a padded cell (if they are lucky) by Lone Star.

Any party, in mostly any game I run, that starts using mutations, apperance, racist demeanor and other to justify wholesale slaughter is on a quick route to Dark Side points, mental disfiguration, Qlippoth or whatever else the system uses. If there is anyting intrensically evil, it is probably very uncommon and almost never encounted by PCs.

[Narf the Mouse]

Even D&D has at least mostly dropped 'always evil' alignments.

[Narf the Mouse]

I agree with that. Anyone who tried that with greenskins in ShadowRun would rather be labeled a deluded serial killer and thrown in a padded cell (if they are lucky) by Lone Star.

Any party, in mostly any game I run, that starts using mutations, apperance, racist demeanor and other to justify wholesale slaughter is on a quick route to Dark Side points, mental disfiguration, Qlippoth or whatever else the system uses. If there is anyting intrensically evil, it is probably very uncommon and almost never encounted by PCs.

Yeah, that does bother me about dungeon crawling. I guess that's one reason I've never been able to run it well.

And even if something is a 'demon', that is, irredeemably evil, isn't it evil to hunt and kill someone because they might become a threat in the future? They are still a person, after all.

On the other hand, part of me wants to appreciate each fiction on its own merits and not just by real-world standards - And there's some good in that thought.

And then, completely dismissing something because it has faults to go with its good parts is arrogant.

...And then a sarcastic thought hit me: 'Is it too much to ask that fiction live up to my standards'? Heh.

[Thunderhowl]

I agree with that. Anyone who tried that with greenskins in ShadowRun would rather be labeled a deluded serial killer and thrown in a padded cell (if they are lucky) by Lone Star.

Incorrect. The Humanis Policlub is quite legal, though suspected of being an arm of the terrorist group Alamos 20000. So it's possible that they would be lauded as a hero in the media and get a slap on the wrist by the law. Unless they changed that in the newer editions.

Anyway, a number of RPGs and fiction use that as a measuring stick for morality. It allows grey area as a place to explore such difficult topics such as racism, gender bias, slavery and poverty in addition to other social ills under the safe and comfortable lens of the game.

Take my character in the Rifts game that Tom is running. He's a dyed in the wool member of the Coalition States, a fascist state in which non-humans are second class citizens at best and enemies of the state to be shot on sight at the worst. As a Dog Boy, Rex has eagerly helped hunt down and kill without trial any number of non-humans, D-Bees (dimensional beings) and psychics and is still a good guy because he's doing it to save humanity from eradication at the hands of other-worldly entities that view humans as nothing more than playthings or an amusing food source. Kevin Siembieda takes great pains to remind us constantly that while the rulers of the CS are corrupt and mostly insane, the rank and file is largely made up of average joes who believe that for every monster they drag out of a lean-to and shoot in the street like a dog is one less monster that will eat/rape/murder/skin for an unholy rite their kid brother or mom. It's going to make for some great role playing when Rex realizes that not all D-Bees are out to destroy humanity and the rest of the PCs realize that the CS troops aren't all baby-kicking, jack-boot wearing, Nazis.

Are the Coalition States bad guys? Yes! Is everyone IN the Coalition States a bad guy? No!

In the Buffy example quoted above, I think the Buffy Writers did that to remind us that Buffy is just as prone to making the same petty, evil mistakes that everyone else on that show makes. Yes, she's the hero, but that doesn't make her right all the time. I think the term they prefer is Protagonist rather than Hero. Buffy killed that vampire in a perfectly human moment of weakness because she was hurting. Riley hurt Buffy and Buffy needed to take that hurt out on something else. The fact that the vampire was a soulless monster just made it "Ok" by most normal people's standards. It's rationalization, and it happened A LOT in the Buffyverse.

But hey, it's part of what made that show so good. Honestly, by the last season, we all wanted Buffy to shut up and die (again) so we could have more screen time with the supporting cast anyway, right?

In just about any fictional setting worth it's salt, racism is a trope that writers love to use, because it make us feel and makes us think, in addition to making easy villains . Drizzt in the Forgotten Realms, the Coalition States in Rifts, the poli-clubs, the Tirs and the NAN in Shadowrun, half the hunters in Supernatural, the Mutants in Marvel Comics, the Cylons in Battlestar Galactica, etc. At the same time, most of those shows will devote entire story arcs to reminding us that the hatred and bigotry that the bad guys feel isn't without cause.

It's the poorly written fiction that only tells us one half of the story. I generally want to know why my villainous bastards are villainous bastards, don't you?

[Narf the Mouse]

While ignorance of the truth is a perfectly valid excuse for not following it, I would find it hard to believe that someone could participate in so many brutal murders and not realise they are wrong without being evil.

Generally, I find that most people want to think of themselves as good, no matter how good or evil they are and that people who actually think of themselves as evil are usually just A) Depressed, B) Wannabes or C) Evil.

However, in my experience with myself, most of the times I've tried to convince myself I wasn't actually doing anything wrong and 'succeeded', I still knew very well I was doing something wrong - I was just ignoring that fact very firmly - Although I am a rather good person, I can say with some assurance.

To come to some sort of point, as far as I can tell, most people don't just wake up one day and say 'Hmm, I'm going to be evil'.

No, first they accept a small lie. Then they accept a larger lie. And then a still larger one. This is the way most tyrannies have worked; first, the tyrant starts with a need. And then, the tyrant tries to tie that need into what they want. To feel safe, secure, with a prosperous family that isn't in danger of dying. And all it takes is to give the tyrant a little power...

And eventually they are swallowing lies they would have violently rejected before.

And these are all perfectly ordinary people.

But perfectly ordinary people are capable of great evil - And just because they thought it was right, does not make them not evil.

[Thunderhowl]

It also depends on the type of fiction being written, right? I refer you all to this site for it is the sex + awesome.

They have an entire section devoted to Morality as it applies to fiction.

I lurves this site, and I haven't even scratched the surface of it yet.

In regards to Narf's point about ignorance I just have to say this. Most governments that have their troops committing atrocities don't bother to lie to their troops and tell them that they aren't doing anything wrong. Instead they console the troops, telling them that they are shouldering the burden of Necessary Evil To Save Their Way of Life after engaging in a thorough propaganda campaign to demonize their enemy. In the case of the Coalition States, it's easy to dehumanize their enemies when those enemies are often inhuman if not outright demonic. Cylons don't have souls, they aren't people. They are Toasters, right?

Look at video games, especially 1st person shooters. Most of the villains in the latest 1st person shooters are either one of two things, Demons/Aliens or Nazis. Why? Because it's socially acceptable to shoot Nazis and aliens or demons, especially when you are saving humanity or saving the western world from Nazi Fascism.

Sometimes it's nice to play an RPG or read some fiction where the line between good and evil is nice and dark and easy to see. Sometimes it's satisfying to not know who's the good guy because both sides are guilty of drifting into grey territory.

I really like how Alina is playing the Hunter/Weregeek dynamic in the comic so far. Are the Hunters maniacs persecuting Geeks who would be harmless if left alone or are they the only ones battling an evil that threatens Normal Society? As a geek I lean toward the Hunters being bad guys, but are they really bad or is it just a few trigger-happy ones that are willing to shoot first and "save" later?

Look here for an example of what I'm saying, only better written.

[Narf the Mouse]

Oh, I've read tv tropes. It will eat your brain. I Am Not Making This Up.

And, to take the BSG example, the first lie that started it all was probably 'Oh, they're robots. They're not really sentient'. And when you don't actually know enough to dispute that...

Generally, ethnic groups that regularly kill each other have centuries or more of lies about each other that they've killed each other over.

[Thunderhowl]

Generally, ethnic groups that regularly kill each other have centuries or more of lies about each other that they've killed each other over.

Yes. Propoganda, exactly as I said.
But what if it isn't based in lies, but is based in truth? What if the vast majority of the monsters really are evil, like in the Buffyverse or on Supernatural or in Rifts? Is it then wrong for the Protagonist to stop saying "What if these ones aren't evil?" or "Gee Whiz, maybe not all face eating demons are bad after all!"

It entirely depends on the type of fiction/RPG one is writing/running. If one has a clear line between good and evil in their setting, and one of the characters crosses that line, then there will be repercussions. If, however, the setting is more realistic and has more areas of grey, then more leeway will likely be afforded that character. Thus spawns all the alignment arguments.

[Narf the Mouse]

If one becomes a monster to fight monsters, then where is the victory over monsters?

[Tom the Fanboy]

If one becomes a monster to fight monsters, then where is the victory over monsters?

The monsters are fighting/killing each other and leaving everyone else alone?

I the Anarchist alignment in Palladium is the least likely to start arguments.

Of all the things in 4th edition, I thought the alignment change was the funniest. It reminded me of the Palladium alignment system. It's a straight-line system with two extremes. To be fair, Palladium does have the offside alignment of Aberrant (and Taoist if you go by Mystic China) so it isn't pure straight-line itself.

[Thunderhowl]

If one becomes a monster to fight monsters, then where is the victory over monsters?

Easy to say, but morality often takes a backseat to survival. In Vampire: the Masquerade one of their catchphrases was "A monster I am, lest a monster I become."
Sometimes survival is the only victory the Protagonists can get.

Don't you find that stories where Good triumphs over Evil time after time without losing anything or having to compromise their moral high ground in any way get boring after a while?

[Narf the Mouse]

I like stories where I can at least tell who the good guys are.

[Thunderhowl]

I like stories where I can at least tell who the good guys are.

Doesn't that kind of limit the stories that you read? I gotta tell ya man, there is some really good stuff out there where the line between good and evil gets a little blurry.
Hey, I love a good 4-colour good vs evil epic as much as the next guy, but I also love a story where I can really see both sides of the issue, and can see that they are both right, or a story where it would be a simple black and white issue if the characters weren't all shades of grey because of their human flaws.

In your original Buffy example, was she being evil? Sure (depending on your definition), but that's what makes Buffy an interesting character. Flaws make characters interesting, and sometimes, a lack of flaws in a story where everyone else is flawed is interesting too.
Buffy is petty, and self absorbed, and kind of a bitch, but that's what makes her interesting. It's why Giles left, it's why Angel left, it's why all her relationships fall apart. That stuff can make for really good stories.

[Narf the Mouse]

Real life is dark and depressing. I do read some dark stuff, but most of the time I prefer lighter stories. I read for escapism.

[Thunderhowl]

Real life is dark and depressing. I do read some dark stuff, but most of the time I prefer lighter stories. I read for escapism.

Me too, it's just that sometimes I like to escape to the dungeon because then my life doesn't seem so lame once I've finished reading.

[Vaporisor]

Well, in terms of RPGs, that is why DnD had the alignment system. In the rules even, it says that good and evil are not a matter of perception, but is what is. Something that is evil, just is. Evil things know there evil. That was put in simply to prevent moral dilemas. In terms of real life, I have no ideology of good and evil per se. It is all just about honesty and egoism. Seeing as it is late, I really don't feel like going into the semantics of it all. But fanaticism and facination are normally the lead modivators in things that one might consider evil. Example is the anime psychological thriller, "Perfect Blue"