Villainy and Philosophy I: Of Crime and Punishment

by Gabriel Ang

Crime and Punishment has been one the most widely praised and widely acclaimed books written in the 19th century. Written by a Russian named Fyodor Dostoevsky, this book has been praised as a powerful psychological study of the criminal mind. More than that, it is filled with religious, moral and philosophical themes and commentary. Such commentary was practically unheard of in the 19th century. The book was considered radical for its time, and today it is considered a classic. It is with the philosophy of this book that I compare the villains found in many of today's RPGs.

The book asks of us: Is it not just for a man of great reason and genius to commit a crime and break moral law, if it will ultimately benefit humanity?

In many RPGs as of late, the writers have given us very sympathetic villains who, in some way, do what they do because they believe they would be able to help the planet and it's inhabitants with it. Players might see the villain's way of saving the planet as unneeded and evil, but some of us get compelled to try to see it in the way of the main villain. During the course of the games the villains tend to be described as highly intelligent or "enlightened", believing that they may be able to help the planet by doing an act most would see as atrocious. As the game progresses, the villain proceeds to do deeds that most players would surely conclude as evil. The villain would, however, justify it as the road to "salvation" for the planet. Some people would call the villain mad, while a few might see him as misguided. Others might even agree with him.

We would then ask ourselves: Does the villain truly have the right to commit moral crimes for the benefit of the planet? In RPGs we are traditionally playing the good guys, who are out to stop the big villain. Developers tend to portray the villain as a "madman" who is hell bent on causing pain to everyone, and that the only way to end the "madness" is to kill the villain. After reading the book, I started to realize how most of the games try to impress upon us the viewpoint of the heroes. While they do try to show the villains motives in the game, they game still limits us to believe and rely on the heroes' viewpoint in the story. More often than not the villains are portrayed as "evil" and "wrong" in the game. Still, what is right and wrong? Like most books, players should be given the choice whether the villain's acts were justified or not. It falls to the player whether the villain, who may have had the planet's welfare in mind, really did have the right to commit unlawful and immoral acts for the sake of the world.

But it is this philosophy in the book that truly made me think: Man can only truly repent and be saved if there are people who truly love him and want to help him.

This is why I questioned why most RPGs needed you to kill the main villain. Why is it that, almost by plot convenience, we have no other choice but to fight, and most likely kill, the villain? I'd like to find and play a game where the lead villain can be convinced to end his acts, and to find another way to help the planet. I really agree with Dostoevsky that love and concern is needed if a criminal/villain would be able to repent for his acts and return to the society which has isolated him. In fact, many RPGs show the heroes' being concerned of the villain, also hoping that the villain could be changed without a fight.

Sadly, this is something we might not be able to see in many RPGs of today. As long as developers stick to the formula of taking out the lead villain, we might never see the day where villains can be saved from their destructive paths.