Adventures The Problem of Evil [Forked From Ampersand: Wizards & Worlds]

[mhacdebhandia]

Originally Posted by Ydars

An orc in my game is not evil; it is a shark and driven by a lust for savage slaughter that it can control no more than the predator from the deep. It is dangerous, murderous and it must be destroyed or else ruin will follow, but it is not evil; just a tortured thing consumed by blood-lust. This IMHO is how Tolkien wanted us to view Orcs.

Tolkien has about as much relevance to my games of D&D as a plastic bucket full of eels, at least when it comes to questions like this. He has nothing to teach me about morality and the "proper" position of antagonists in my games.

The whole idea that there is some "true D&D" way to do these things is just so much crap.

[mhacdebhandia]

Originally Posted by Jasperak

Sorry, I play games to escape reality, not model it badly.

Escapism is overrated.

Treating the PCs and their NPCs allies as a football team that you play for against the Evil Orc football team is all well and good, but you don't have to be "working through your issues" to want your games to take place in a more ambiguous moral or political landscape.

[Irda Ranger]

Originally Posted by Rechan

Notice that all through that paragraph I said for me. I ain't telling you what you should enjoy. But I don't need to be lectured on how I should be playing or what I should like.

And I was disagreeing with you on what makes good D&D. I'm allowed to do that.

Originally Posted by Rechan

Players that enjoy this sort of thing are more interested in their characters, their backgrounds and motivations, then they are about orcs and XP.

You are mistaken if you believe that moral certainty makes backgrounds and motivations unimportant. I know this from personal roleplaying experience.

Originally Posted by Rechan

This is also a huge double standard. Moral relativist games suck because no DM can be Moore and Whedon, so they're just kidding themselves. But moral absolutist games rock even though those DMs aren't Tolkien?

No, not at all. Moral relativist games are boring if the DM is trying to use a game medium to walk through Kant's moral theory. I've already read that one. Further, D&D really isn't built for deep and meaningful moral exploration. It's a game of epic fantasy, not a coffee house in Prague.

Originally Posted by Rechan

What is it about saying "We're right and they're wrong, the end" that makes a game superior to others? And, why are you trying so hard to convince everyone here of that?

I really don't care if you agree with me or not. Kamikaze Midget started a thread looking for opinions. I gave mine.

But if you really want to know: It's because D&D is a lousy medium for moral argument. I'm not saying it's impossible, but it is lousy. If you want to explore moral issues there are just much better ways to do it. Read a book; take a class; debate your favorite Priest or Rabbi. Trying to develop your moral compass by playing D&D is most likely to result in both skewed ethics and bad gaming. Further, what are the odds that all the players at the table need to learn the same lesson? Slim to none, I'm thinking.

[Irda Ranger]

Originally Posted by Imaro

Hey, I'm just curious but to those who play with good and evil absolutes... where do Warlocks stand in your campaigns? I'm just curious to see where the class falls for most in a black and white world.

Seriously, the Infernalist fluff is a problem. The strict reading of the rule effects aren't any more evil than any other classes though, so it's easy to re-fluff them. Feylocks and Starlocks don't even need that, mostly.

[mhacdebhandia]

Originally Posted by S'mon

Yeah, I agree. The new Galactica was better when it focused primarily on adventure, without too much of the moral relativism (which makes no sense in context anyway, after one side has unprovokedly genocided 99.99% of the others' population).

The "moral relativism" in the new Battlestar Galactica isn't about whether the humans should forgive the Cylons, dude. It's about things like whether or not Cylon prisoners have rights, whether or not to trust Cylons who want to fight for the humans, whether or not humans and Cylons have the right to have a family together.

There's no question that the Cylons, as a group, murdered 99% of humanity without provocation; the ambiguity comes in when you consider whether an individual's belonging by "birth" to such a murderous group means they're not considered persons, with the rights of persons. That sort of thing.

A D&D analogy might be "can an orc be a paladin of Pelor?" or "does an orc-human couple have the right to live among humans and raise a half-orc child?", that sort of thing.

[Jasperak]

Originally Posted by mhacdebhandia

I know what you're trying to say, but this phrasing is screwed up.

What if their goals are to wipe out the orcs so that humans can take their lands? Are the orcs who fight back, perhaps even raiding human villages to put the PCs on the defensive, evil?

Now, I know that you mean something like "the PCs in my game are heroes, so anyone who gets in their way is evil because at a minimum they're interfering with the pursuit of something good". Your PCs wouldn't set out to wipe out the orcs of the Red Hills so humans could start mining for copper there, so it doesn't come up - but the way you phrased it, above, really doesn't work, because there are plenty of potential goals for PCs which you don't have to be evil to oppose. It's just that none of them would be the PCs' goals in your game.

I'm not sure you do understand. I think I have answered your initial question several times that the orcs in my game are EVIL. I'm not talking about other human lands, nor using the orcs as an analogous culture to one you would find in the real world. Because in my games I define the orcs as EVIL the PCs have no issue with orc genocide. There is no redeeming aspect to orc culture since there is no orc culture! In my games you cannot redeem an orc. We do not treat orcs as humans in another skin. We find this play works for us. I really don't know any other way to say we avoid these questions by defining the orcs as EVIL.

To answer directly your comment about the PCs setting out to wipe out the orcs of the Red Hills to take their copper mines. In a hypothetical situation, if the PCs were tasked by their liege to assault the orcs to secure the mine for the kingdom, they would generally be happy to do it. Depending on the reward of course

To me it is really about what team the PCs are on. We try to keep moral ambiguity out of the equation. The orcs are always on the other team and we tell stories about how we beat the snot out of them.

[mhacdebhandia]

Originally Posted by Jasperak

I'm not sure you do understand. I think I have answered your initial question several times that the orcs in my game are EVIL.

Yeah, the post I quoted of yours was from early in the thread, so I did have my question answered later on as I read further.

However!

Originally Posted by Jasperak

To me it is really about what team the PCs are on. We try to keep moral ambiguity out of the equation. The orcs are always on the other team and we tell stories about how we beat the snot out of them.

Now I have a new question.

Why is it important to your games that orcs are not people? I mean, I will absolutely accept an answer like "because Tolkien did it and we like Tolkien", but why not fight devils? Non-humanoid monsters which are just as intelligent as people, something like the xenomorph from Alien?

I'm just trying to grasp why it's so important to some people that there be things that look like people but don't count as people for them to kill in their games. Again, "tradition" is an acceptable answer, of course.

[Rechan]

Originally Posted by Irda Ranger

And I was disagreeing with you on what makes good D&D. I'm allowed to do that.

Yeah, but you have no right to tell me I'm playing the game wrong.

No, not at all. Moral relativist games are boring if the DM is trying to use a game medium to walk through Kant's moral theory. I've already read that one. Further, D&D really isn't built for deep and meaningful moral exploration. It's a game of epic fantasy, not a coffee house in Prague.

Okay, I want you to explain to me what you think a morally ambiguous game of D&D looks like. Go ahead.

From the way you talk, I expect your response to look like this:

DM: "All right, goblins charge from the underbrush towards the caravan. I'd like everyone to roll a philosophy check."
Player 1: "I got a 23. I understand the importance of self preservation in the desire for primitive humanoids to raid caravans. But, according to Aristotle, man does not need to infringe on another man for survival. There are, after all, non-lethal ways to sustain oneself, especially in a world such as this with magic that can grow and produce food. I should have a +2 to my next Talk Reason check in order to avoid a violent altercation."
DM: "Unfortunately, the head goblin rolled a 19. He counters your current Philosophy check with his Dodge Empathy skill. His band gains self worth from raiding caravans. The goblins pull out their weapons."
Player 2: "But wait. I want to quote Kirkiguard - can that give me a bonus?"
Player 3: "And I have this passage of 'The Republic', that should help."
DM: "One at a time, please."

You say D&D is Epic fantasy, therefore it's not "not a coffee house in Prague." It's also a strategy game, but it isn't a Sun Tzu lecture or a Military Academy. It's also a game about fighting, but it's not a martial arts or fencing class. It's a game about math, but it isn't a course in staitstics. It's also a game about acting a role, but it's not a stage play on Broadway. It's also a game about playing elves, but it's not Santa's Workshop.

D&D is a rules system. Everything else is what you do with it. That's it. There's nothing about Shadowrun that makes it inherently better to play Morally Ambiguous games than D&D Modern; the only difference between the two are the rule systems. Anything one can do with D&D, Fantasy GURPS and Fantasy HERO can do, and vice versa.

But if you really want to know: It's because D&D is a lousy medium for moral argument.

Who the hell is making an argument?

Here, let me put it to you this way: D&D is a great medium for telling a story, and some stories can be morally ambiguous.

Trying to develop your moral compass by playing D&D is most likely to result in both skewed ethics and bad gaming.

I really, really don't get this argument.

We pretend to be elves that cast magic for gods sake; there's not much room to throw stones at someone else's hypothetical mental clarity.

What makes you think that the point is to 'develop' or 'learn' something?

Saying that someone likes to play morally ambiguous games so they can "develop a moral compass" is like saying someone likes playing a barbarian because "they have anger issues they need to work out" or likes to play a cleric because "they want to develop a closer relationship with God". It's a cop-out argument so you can make morally ambiguous games look stupid.

I know what right and wrong is. I know what good and evil is. No matter what my character does in a game, it is not going to change my belief system. I don't use D&D to change anything about me, I do it because it's fun, and you know what? I find morally ambiguous games fun. It's that simple. And doing them with D&D is not hard and still enjoyable.

So you can't really tell me "D&D isn't a medium for moral ambiguity" when I can use it for it, I and my players like it. If it wasn't, then we couldn't do it successfully. If it wasn't, then Eberron wouldn't exist or be so successful. If D&D was only Epic Heroic Fantasy, there wouldn't be supplement after supplement on rules for playing monsters.

Or, we can do it your way: D&D is a horrible way to reinforce Good and Evil. D&D is a system of probability and simple math. If you need something to help you be Good, then go to church.

[Hussar]

Originally Posted by Irda Ranger

/snip

But if you really want to know: It's because D&D is a lousy medium for moral argument. I'm not saying it's impossible, but it is lousy. If you want to explore moral issues there are just much better ways to do it. Read a book; take a class; debate your favorite Priest or Rabbi. Trying to develop your moral compass by playing D&D is most likely to result in both skewed ethics and bad gaming. Further, what are the odds that all the players at the table need to learn the same lesson? Slim to none, I'm thinking.

I gotta side with Irda Ranger on this. D&D is a poor medium for this sort of game. Not that this sort of game is bad, it most certainly isn't. But, I do think it's bad for D&D. D&D focuses on killing, plain and simple. The entire game is set up that you are going to go out somewhere, with weapons, and kill stuff. This has been true of D&D since forever.

Yes, not every game focuses on combat, that's true, but, to be honest, that's certainly the direction the mechanics are pointing you towards. Heh, there's a reason we call it Kill XP.

I think there are games which can do this sort of exploration very well. I'm just thinking that D&D isn't one of them. It's a very poor tool for this sort of campaign.

[Hussar]

Originally Posted by Jasperak

WOTC defines the brand. As an example I would guess that there are more people playing in Eberron than in Greyhawk and maybe even the Forgotten Realms reboot. That's just a guess though.

Right now it doesn't matter as much, but it may five years from now when Heroic Fantasy makes way for Dark Fantasy or Noir Fantasy. When Greyhawk and the original Forgotten Realms are distant memories.

I would hasten to point out that Greyhawk is most definitely based in other genres than Heroic Fantasy. Greyhawk has LOADS of shades of grey and is much more heavily leaning towards pulp and sword and sorcery fantasy than heroic. Look at the actual city of Greyhawk and you'll see that. Zagyg makes himself a god by imprisoning demon lords and draining their power. And he's one of the (sort of) good guys in the setting.

[Imaro]

Originally Posted by Hussar

I gotta side with Irda Ranger on this. D&D is a poor medium for this sort of game. Not that this sort of game is bad, it most certainly isn't. But, I do think it's bad for D&D. D&D focuses on killing, plain and simple. The entire game is set up that you are going to go out somewhere, with weapons, and kill stuff. This has been true of D&D since forever.

Yes, not every game focuses on combat, that's true, but, to be honest, that's certainly the direction the mechanics are pointing you towards. Heh, there's a reason we call it Kill XP.

I think there are games which can do this sort of exploration very well. I'm just thinking that D&D isn't one of them. It's a very poor tool for this sort of campaign.

See and I disagree, since the act of killing things and taking stuff has nothing to do with whether D&D is suited to exploring morality. I actually think it has more to do with the setting than the actual game mechanics... I mean honestly I feel like your ignoring Dark Sun, Planescape, Eberron, etc. all pretty popular D&D settings where moral relativity is actually a part of the setting.

[Rechan]

Originally Posted by Hussar

But, I do think it's bad for D&D.

Huh?

How is it bad for D&D? Is a morally ambiguous game going to poison D&D? Is how I play going to seep into your game? Will it infect your dice? Does it somehow degrade the books?

D&D is the most widely played RPG. People who have never even picked up a die know what D&D is. So it naturally can accommodate a wide assortment of games.

I understand when you say that D&D is poorly equipped, from a mechanical point of view, to handle many games. But I will fight you to the ends of the earth that it is poorly equipped story-wise.

D&D focuses on killing, plain and simple. The entire game is set up that you are going to go out somewhere, with weapons, and kill stuff. This has been true of D&D since forever.

What, you think there's no killing in morally ambiguous games? There's tons of killing. Usually it involves turning on your allies. Or killing some OTHER group after killing half of the FIRST group because it's the SECOND group whose really at fault.

"We're good, they're evil" is not the only excuse to throw down on a fight.

IF D&D is merely "The combat", then what goes on between the combats, and the reasons for those combats, is irrelevant. If it's irrelevant, then both moral absolutism and moral ambiguity are the same: window dressing.

[Rechan]

Originally Posted by Imaro

See and I disagree, since the act of killing things and taking stuff has nothing to do with whether D&D is suited to exploring morality. I actually think it has more to do with the setting than the actual game mechanics... I mean honestly I feel like your ignoring Dark Sun, Planescape, Eberron, etc. all pretty popular D&D settings where moral relativity is actually a part of the setting.

Not to mention, as Hussar himself points out, so does Greyhawk.

But, what Imaro said.

[Rechan]

Hell, many monsters in D&D aren't evil and you still fight them.

Owlbears aren't evil.
Ankhegs aren't evil.
Elementals aren't evil.
Gibbering mouther - hideous monster! Not evil.
Gorgon isn't evil.
Hydra aren't evil.
Lizardfolk? How many times have you fought Lizardfolk? They're NEUTRAL.
Mimic: Not evil.
Oozes? Not evil.
Otyugh? Not evil.
Spiders of all stripes? Not evil.
Golems: Not evil.
Wyverns? Not evil.
THE TARRASQUE: Not Evil.
All animals and vermin: not evil.

And yet, somehow, PCs find the motivation to fight and kill the above.

Regardless of if the enemy is good, evil, neutral, if their intentions mean well, or if they're wholly justified in their actions, if they were born evil or were raised evil... if they're trying to eat your face, you put your sword in them.

And delving into a dungeon in order to hack through its traps and defenders, for the loot? That's not inherently Good, nor Ambiguous. But many an adventure is just that. It wouldn't have changed the Tomb of Horrors if Acererak wasn't a lich, but just a wizard who built all those traps just to protect his loot after he died. The goal was to survive the gauntlet to get the payout, and have the bragging rights of surviving the Tomb.

[Jasperak]

Originally Posted by mhacdebhandia

Escapism is overrated.

Treating the PCs and their NPCs allies as a football team that you play for against the Evil Orc football team is all well and good, but you don't have to be "working through your issues" to want your games to take place in a more ambiguous moral or political landscape.

I am going to try and clear up this whole "working through your issues" bit people keep bringing up.

Originally Posted by jasperak

Although I have gamed with a few that wanted to play "Moral Dilemmas and Existentialism" for a short time. Those games tended to become more about individual players working through their own issues and bordered on "therapeutic role-playing." Those people would be better served by reading Sartre than playing in games that I enjoy.

I want to know why people think I am painting with a wide brush, people that want moral questions in their game by this comment. Do I really have to say "at my table", "in my experience", "your mileage may vary" when I said specifically my feelings based on the handful of people I've gamed with.

Or did I get closer with this?

Originally Posted by Jasperak

I can see how what I have said may be taken that way, but it is not necessarily my intention. I have a big problem with DMs that want to explore their feelings about their poor orcs that only raid because they have been kicked out of their homeland.

What actually pissed me off in the past was an idiot DM that wanted to explore the Israel-Palestinian Conflict using Elves and Dwarves. He had no bloody clue about evil nor about geo-political issues. This was about four years ago; both of us were in our late-twenties. This guy had a problem with paladins killing babies. He feels sorry for serial killers because they "don't have a choice."

I do not play D&D or any other RPG so some one can work through their issues. If they want to have a conversation about politics, religion, or the meaning of life, fine lets go to the bar. But keep that crap out of the GAME. I do not play so I can feel bad about slaughtering orcs and taking their pie.

I tell a story about how one specific DM tried working through his questions on life in the game and then say "I do not play D&D... so someone can work though their issues." and I am labeled a BADWRONGFUN person. That guy needed a therapist! Again do I have to say AMT, IMHO, YMMV, etc..?

Do I have to spell out that for the first sentence that if a DM sets up a situation that is supposed to evoke pity and I don't buy it because of the melodramic BS (alluded to by my "their feelings for their poor orcs" comment) I am implying every DM. Does it really change anything if I remove the 's' from DMs and change the 'their' to 'his'? I would be pissed off at any DM that acted like this at my table.

I know I have said in later posts that one of the reasons I dislike the moral ambiguity questions is because I have never at my table, in my experience, and your mileage may vary, had a DM that could create a dramatic situation that properly evoked those feelings or questions. That does not imply that no one can play that way.

Some more

I have seen enough people try to work through their issues playing D&D that I don't think it needs to be actively encouraged by Scott and the design team, and that's what I think would be more likely to happen if his vision of evil was the default assumption.

WOW, imagine two Drizzit fanbois that not only have to deal with their character's heritage and naturally evil tendencies, but now are hamstrung because they have to question everything they kill. They cannot even rely on some good old orcs to kill because the DM is defining them in morally relativistic terms.

At my table I have seen one of these people go brain dead and unable to act. This poor kid shut down because he couldn't make a morally ambiguous decision. Seriously. He couldn't figure out what he wanted to do. The other guy was just shallow and as far as I know left the game.

Look I fairly admit I have seen the corner cases here. Most people probably haven't seen the absurdity I have seen that playing D&D can entail. But understand this, I mean what I say and have nothing to take back. I truly wish I was able to express my feelings about this question in a more concise manner, but it is what it is.

Seriously, if I mean to attack or insult anyone I will come out and do it. That was what I feared I would do when this thread started. I thought it was going to veer into real world morality. I am glad that it stayed in game, and hope that we can keep this discussion going for as long as we need to. We are all gamers and I think we can learn from one another.