Some time back, Peter Maranci of Interregnum
proposed as the game magazine's topic of the month "Human Nature".
His own response a month later invoked "Good and Evil". To me, both
the nature of man and the nature of Good and Evil are Great
Questions. The best minds of all the centuries have been trying to
answer them. The efforts of even the most veteran role player are not
going to significantly impact the Halls of Academia.
Still, any decent game creator must have some sort of answer to these
questions. I for one dislike the "black and white" school of gaming,
where man is portrayed as a good guy or a bad guy. I enjoy more the
"shades of grey" school, where it is not always immediately clear the
proper thing to do. The grey approach is both more realistic, and
presents the players with more interesting choices.
Yet, while it is easy to build black and white characters, how does
one build grey people? I'm going to develop some other traits of
mankind. Man is a creature of instincts. Man is a creature of culture
(or habit). Man is also capable of rationalizing his actions, so that
however black his actions may appear on the surface, many individuals
can portray themselves as white in the minds. Finally, after
reviewing these other dimensions of human behavior, we can return to
the original criteria of Good and Evil to see what is left, if
anything.
As an illustration of a human conflict that might be typical of an
FRP scenario, I'm going to sketch out a valley of the 1800s North
American Wild West. The valley features a fast flowing stream which
cut a gorge between two mountain chains. A high plateau opens above
it. The open prairie is below. The stream is one of the region's best
sources of water. Living in the region are a half dozen characters,
each of which might become a player character in a competitive
scenario where not all of the characters win. More likely, one of the
below individuals is leader of the PC group, and the rest become NPC
opposition.
The Native American Chief has a treaty which says the valley is his
as long as the grass grows and the sun shines. He has doubts about
the treaty's worth. In past years he has made an uneasy peace with
the cattle people, but now more white people are coming.
The cattle rancher sees the valley as open range, and as such it is
open to him and to all. He opened this land, and has been the Big Man
here, and is used to getting his way. As his ranch hands are numerous
and loyal, few have challenged him.
The cavalry captain is here to keep the peace, and to follow orders
from Washington. On the other hand, money talks. It can certainly can
change the orders, and might even change how they are
interpreted.
The Sheriff of the local town is also here to keep the peace, but at
another level. He owns the saloon, and gets his cut from sales of
alcohol, from gambling, and from prostitution. He's kind of ruthless,
but is good at keeping 'the law' as he would like to see it. This
mostly means he'll run off anyone who wants to run a competing scam.
He's got an understanding with the cavalry captain, but the cattle
rancher and his ruffians don't like him very much.
The young German immigrant farmer has a deed to some land just
outside the valley, astride a ford used by most everyone. He comes
with barbed wire. He's got the law on his side, a fair young wife,
and numerous farmer friends whose lands are not quite in such a
strategic position. The other farmers have also been having troubles
with the cattle men, the Indians, and that ungodly sheriff.
The railroad robber baron has sent an agent to quietly do whatever it
takes to get a road driven through the valley to the high plateau. If
he succeeds, most everyone (white) in the region will become
wealthier. However, this wealth will not be evenly distributed...
When a student of animals describes a beast's behavior, it is
natural and accepted that he would speak of instincts and drives.
Some modern schools which would accent man's ability to reason and
minimize the role of preprogrammed directives dislike attributing to
men preprogrammed behaviors. The (expletive deleted) with them.
I'm going to talk of lions, wolves and men as sharing some basic
drives. I'll review a drive. I'll show how the presence of that drive
in moderation is healthy for the possessor and his dependents. In
most cases, it can be shown that the lack of such a drive is not
healthy, nor is an excess of that drive. When done, we'll have a
partial list of basic drives which might partially define 'human
nature'. At any time we can review our list of Wild West antagonists,
and see that they share in various degrees all these drives.
This section defines how men are alike. In the next section we will
examine cultures, and how the various Wild West antagonists twist the
common drives to adapt to varying conditions.
Let's start with an easy drive. All lions, wolves, and men get
hungry. Appetites result in eating, which is a healthy behavior. One
with a too powerful hunger might over eat, and get fat, which is not
so healthy. One with a weak hunger drive might not eat enough, which
is not healthy either. All our antagonists get hungry. On the
surface, hunger has nothing to do with the Wild West conflict, but we
shall see about that later. One who responds to his hunger drive by
eating in moderation might be a 'Good' man. One who stuffs his face
in excess, perhaps ignoring the needs of others, might be drifting
towards 'Evil'.
After hunger, let's move on to sex. There is a strong tendency among
lions, wolves, men and other beasts for males and females to get
together and produce young. At the center of normal acceptable
behavior, you get affection, protection, nurturing and growth out of
family behavior. At the abnormal extremes one might see rape,
domestic violence, and dysfunctional families. It's getting easier to
apply words like Good and Evil now, isn't it? Again, at first look,
the above Wild West scenario has nothing at all to do with sex and
family drives, any more than the hunger drive. Let's take a second
look. What happens if the families of the Indian chief, farmer,
cattlemen, or most anyone else has their supply of food threatened?
As we shall see, the adults will do as necessary to feed the
young.
On to the peer bond. While men (unlike wolves or lions) might hunt
alone, they do not act and stand alone. Men of the same gender and
age groups tend to gang together. Each Wild West antagonist in our
example is the leader of a group of men that shares a common life
style. Each member of each group might want to be a leader someday.
There is a competition for status among each group. There are various
traditions and prizes which determine who will lead should a crisis
arrive. In a well working group, this competition for leadership
might result in a more effective response to any external threat.
Such behavior might be Good. Of course, bickering or excessive desire
for status or leadership could divide the group or weaken it. Again,
we drift towards Evil. Finally, if a potential member of the group is
not inclined follow the group, it is weakened. Thus, the peer bond
can be too weak.
Finally, there is the territorial instinct. For wolf or lion, each
pack or pride must have enough land with enough game to feed the
family. If intruders come, they are sensed, rejected, and driven off.
It is easy to see the conflict for our western valley as an echo of
an animal skirmish for territory. For men though, just land is not
always sufficient. In a complex society, there are many resources
that might be necessary for the members of the peer bond and their
families to continue it's lifestyle. Would the cavalry fight to
protect an valued ore found in the hills? How much will the railroad
push for the smoothest possible grade on their projected route?
How can a man defending the land and resources necessary to feed his
family and continue his way of life not be seen as Good? How can the
outsider coming in to seize the homeland's resources not be seen as
Evil?
What then is the Good man? He loves and protects his family. He
protects the resources necessary that his family might thrive. He is
a member of a group which uses similar resources, and is willing to
defend them as necessary. What is an Evil man? He is a Good man, only
more so.
In theory, man is a creature of reason. Given a problem, he can
reach an objective and logical solution. I won't deny the existence
of reason or logic. In practice though, logic and reason are not
overly relevant to the behavior of realistic human NPCs. As a crude
model of how to set NPC behavior, I'd suggest that logic and reason
should only be applied after the prejudices of the NPCs culture have
gotten him into so much trouble that his livelihood and income is
threatened. Even then, an INT and EGO check might be required.
Habit is the most important aspect of culture. What problems has a
character encountered in his past, his father's past, and his
grandfather's? What solutions were applied to these problems? The
truly human NPC should solve today's problems using yesterday's
solutions.
The cavalry commander is real good at catching Confederate supply
trains, and hitting infantry in the flank. Has he ever fought
Indians? Courage is the major status trait among the Indian warriors.
Whatever solution they might have to their problems, it must involve
the youngsters showing their worth. Talking tough with a few dozen
cowhands with rifles at his back has always worked for the cattle
rancher. What will he do next time someone tries to cross him? Many
of the German farmers emigrated after the failed revolutions of 1848.
Their ideas of Liberty, Law, Tyranny and Discipline are shaped by
their failures in the Old World, as well as the promises made in the
New World's Constitution.
The NPC must have a history. What problems did he face in his youth?
How did he solve them? What problems did his parents have? How did
they solve them? More important still, what are the abstractions made
from these past problems? The Revolution and Civil War were fought
for 'Freedom' and 'Liberty'. What do these mean to a young black
cavalry conscript? Will these concepts at all effect what orders his
captain will give him? If the robber baron and the sheriff have both
heard of Darwin's "survival of the fittest", will their professions
cause them to interpret the concept any differently?
Habit. Culture. The PCs are of course visitors from another realm.
Their players are aloof from involvement, and full of 20th century
values. It is all too common that a PC will use reason, find a clean
and ethical solution, be a hero, and ride off into the sunset.
Does this make the PCs Good? In the pack hunter section, I used
'Good' to indicate an individual who exercised his instincts in
moderation, and in such a way to benefit his family and peers. A
reasonable, intelligent and habit free PC who applies his clean and
ethical solution might also be labeled 'Good', even if the PC
violates both human instincts and his culture of origin in solving
the conflict. On the other hand, would such a PC really be acting in
character in applying 20th century values and solutions to a 19th
century game?
In playing an interesting and realistic NPC, reason and logic should
be shunned. The Indian chief is not defending his territory so he can
feed his family. Such a consideration is of secondary importance.
First, he is defending his way of life. Your cattle drive is blocked
by barbed wire. Your newly planted wheat is being trampled by cattle.
Your newest troopers do not understand how important it is to do
things By the Book. Your deputy was shot by a drunken cattleman.
What role has reason in any of this? Reason creates abstract ideas,
some of which men are willing to die for. Money. Courage. Free
grazing. Holy ground. The Law. The Flag. Looking at any given
culture's past, one can see how such concepts can help a culture grow
and thrive. This is Good. One can also see how these concepts mix
explosively with the status drive of the peer bond, the territorial
drive, and the instinctive readiness to see a rival peer group as The
Enemy. This can be seen as Evil.
If men contested rationally for resources, compromise would be easy,
there would be few conflicts, and the scenario would be boring. Route
the train through the valley, but away from the tribe's village and
the holy areas. Fence crop areas only, but leave open paths for
cattle drives. If the other guy cheats at poker, protest
politely.
The cavalry commander lost an arm at Gettysburg, a son at Petersburg,
and is not going to lose any more of these goddamned niggers than he
absolutely has to. He was also with Burnside's brigade when 'Taps'
was first played. Hearing it brings back memories.
God created Man. Mr. Colt made them equal.
The Robber Baron is an aloof and distant scum. Perhaps after he
has bribed the U.S. Congress and the territorial governor into making
his interests Law, he becomes more real. When his men start driving
tracks down his so called right of way, he will be a presence.
Perhaps then he'll speak of inevitable progress, rub his fat stomach,
and laugh derisively at the others. Until then, let's leave him
alone. Pick any of the others.
The shooting has started. A respected member of your peer group is
dead. Your way of life is threatened. Your surviving peers are
standing with guns at ready listening. It is time to make a speech.
(These are the 1800s. They are really big on speeches.) Your way of
life is threatened. Your means of feeding your family is not secure.
Is there any doubt at all that you can convince your peers that you
are the Good Guys wearing White Hats? If you declined, would not
someone else step forward to make as good a speech? What values will
you invoke? What past battles will you mention, to steal a little
glory? And is there any doubt at all that the opposing group deserves
to burn in Hellfire Everlasting?
Of course, any good GM has to be ready to drop one NPC, and pick up
the mind set and persona of another. Yep, across the valley another
leader is making another speech. Repeat the above exercise again, and
again, and again...
There are no Evil Men in this valley tonight. There are only Good
Men, only More So.
Smug, aren't you, sitting there with your 20th Century values and
mind set. You can role play any of those Wild West people, then smile
at their quaint historical irrelevancy. Of course all the nasty
things that happened back then couldn't happen now. We live in an age
of reason and intelligence.
Genera switch. Modern Cops. You became an inner city paramedic to
help people and make a difference, but now there are wounded people
lying everywhere, and you would have some tough decisions to make if
you could just stop crying... Persona swap. Your camera crew has
wonderful footage, blood everywhere, and are you going to scoop the
other channels tonight! Persona swap. You are an innocent bystander,
you just live across the hall, but the Pigs are cuffing and beating
every black male in the building... Persona swap. Your partner is
dead, and tonight you are not in any mood to read anyone their
Miranda rights... Persona swap. Yes you must comfort the dying, and
perform rites for the dead, but if someone doesn't get a lid on the
living, your whole parish might burn...
Racism. Sexism within the force. Prostitution and other 'victimless'
crimes. Gangs. Drugs. Arson. The Mafia. Metal detectors in elementary
schools. Need I go on?
The NPC still must only respond to crisis in terms of how he or she
has perceived previous crisis. They should only abandon old concepts
and values after a major emotional crises shows the tried and true
ways have crashed and burned. The NPC still has loyalties to peer and
family. He still is too ready to see an opposing peer group as the
enemy. He can still justify his actions if he is inclined to do
so.
But if the 1800s were a Black and White century, welcome to the Age
of Grey. Some of those people who love and defend their family and
friends, would murder a stranger for pocket change. A 'good' cop is
one who does what he can while looking out for number one. Very few
would understand why in the 19th Century people capitalized words
like Law, Justice, Liberty and Equality. For sure, in the 20th
Century, the practice of capitalizing virtues is long dead. Have the
virtues died too?
Not in fantasy role playing games at least. I'm a shades of grey
player. But still, as a GM, I believe my players must believe they
are doing the right thing. Most of my scenarios will involve the
possibility of violence to liven things up. I prefer Hero Systems as
a not too deadly combat system, where players don't have death guilt
to worry about all that often. People get knocked silly before they
die, mostly. So after the dust settles, the PCs can feel smug about
having done the 'right' thing, and have defeated some scum who
deserved to get defeated.
But still, the defeated NPCs are alive under the skin, or they should
be. They have a past. Their response to the environment (or the PCs)
must reflect that past. That past also gives them values, which are
just abstractions of previous problems solved. If you are
(fill_in_the_blank), everything else will take care of itself. Chose
one value to live by, and a few back ups: Brave/ diligent/ clever/
loyal/ polite/ educated/ rich/ patriotic/ beautiful.
What then of Good and Evil? Do they exist, other than to make players
feel good about beating up NPCs? Is that particular Great Question
now irrelevant? Should I too stop capitalizing virtues?
I don't think so. Good and Evil are still an ancient part of our
culture. In the section on instinct, I could apply Good to one who
constuctirvly applied ancient drives to the modern environment. Evil
was where a drive became too strong or weak, resulting in disharmony
and no benefit to the individual, his family, or his peers.
In the section on cultures, a Good man might be one who knows how his
father lived, how his father approached problems, and defends and
continues The Way. An Evil man threatens another's way of life, and
might perhaps force Change.
In the section on Man's ability to rationalize his actions, I
proposed that most men can defend their lives and actions as Good,
and can project those who oppose them as Evil.
Naturally, having developed these conflicting interpretations of
'Good', I can't leave them alone. I am compelled to confuse things by
mushing them together to form some useful whole. Can one resolve the
Great Question of Human Nature without solving Good and Evil too?
The instincts evolved. They are still evolving, though very slowly.
Gene pools cannot adopt anywhere near as fast as cultures. Cultures
evolve too. What works for one people, at one place, at one time,
might easily fall apart a generation or two down the road.
If both instinct and culture change to adopt to new situations, can
change be viewed as Evil? From within a culture, especially for the
old, any force for change might be easily mistaken for Evil. That's
just wrong. In these times, with technology inducing rapid changes,
flexibility has got to be a virtue, and rigidity a high risk low
probability of reward proposition.
There was another element I mentioned briefly, then discarded. What
was it? Ah, yes. Intelligence and reason. Man supposedly has the
ability to look at problems, without emotion, without prejudice, and
without clinging to old and perhaps dated perspectives. Love not just
the family and your peer bonded friends. Love everybody equally.
Defend not just your own resources. Defend the Earth. Respect all
cultures as the equal of your own. Grow flowers. Slash the defense
budget. Ignore the impulse to scream at the fundamentalist Christian
trying to give the moral choices of his obscure cult the backing of
Law.
Dream on.
Finally, I must apologise that my example was not Politically
Correct. The Wild West was a time of sexism unbridled. My examples
thus got male oriented, and ignored the minor matter of the Conflict
between the Sexes. I can only claim that that's another Great
Question. My limit is two Great Questions per article. Besides, no
Woman would give up her advantage by explaining Her Nature, and if a
Man correctly stated Women's Nature, She would Change.
(Naturally.)
Maybe next time. Meanwhile, consider a so called Hunter Gatherer
culture where the males are hunters and defenders of territory, and
the females are gatherers and caretakers for the young. Specialize
the instincts by gender for these different roles. Drop the distant
descendents of these hunter-gatherers into a high tech environment
where many of both sets of instincts are obsolete. Mix well. Dive for
cover.
Maybe next time...