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

[Nightson]

Originally Posted by frankthedm

Yes.

A quick glance at human history makes that unlikely.

[frankthedm]

Originally Posted by Nightson

A quick glance at human history makes that unlikely.

Except that D&D is not human history. In D&D, settlers actually are taking back lands from inhuman and subhuman monsters, which for humanity has not happened unless you count it when Cro-Magnons wiped Neanderthals off the face of our planet in pre history.

[Jasperak]

Originally Posted by Beginning of the End

So the PCs in your game never fight human opponents?

I fully support "orcs are born to be evil" cosmologies. There's nothing wrong with them. But your argument here seems a trifle irrational. I don't think campaigns in which "we're hunting bandits, but that doesn't mean it's open season on all humans" is a legitimate statement really qualify as some sort of deep, philosophical exploration of the "nature of EVIL".

We generally do not bog down our games with questions about motivations or moral quandaries. We drink wine and happily slaughter orcs. In general the DMs/or I set up the situations with little or no ambiguity; that's what we want out of the game.

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 deal with moral choices in the real world everyday. I have to pick sides every day. I do not want to play in a game where I have to question my definition of evil. I don't care if the orcs have any reasons to attack the village. I don't care if the village started the fight. I am a villager. That is the team I play for. Orcs want to destroy my village. I don't want my village destroyed.

[S'mon]

Originally Posted by Jasperak

I don't care if the orcs have any reasons to attack the village. I don't care if the village started the fight. I am a villager. That is the team I play for. Orcs want to destroy my village. I don't want my village destroyed.

Wow. Well said. My kind of player.

[Kamikaze Midget]

Except that D&D is not human history. In D&D, settlers actually are taking back lands from inhuman and subhuman monsters, which for humanity has not happened unless you count it when Cro-Magnons wiped Neanderthals off the face of our planet in pre history.

Well, that is changing, and has been for a while. What Scott suggests (and what WoW's horde and Eberron's noble goblinoids are) toss in more moral ambiguity into the situation.

Now, moral ambiguity doesn't work excellently in every game (especially something more Tolkeinish), but like Scott, I find it an interesting thing to play with. Orcs are not monsters in most of my games -- they are just different creatures, different cultures.

Part of the reason I go this route is because I'm eager to reject the implicit racism of myth and legend that say that anything different and foreign isn't basically human. It's a modernism that I'm eager to embrace in most of my games (but, it must be said, not all).

[Jasperak]

Originally Posted by Kamikaze Midget

Well, that is changing, and has been for a while. What Scott suggests (and what WoW's horde and Eberron's noble goblinoids are) toss in more moral ambiguity into the situation.

Now, moral ambiguity doesn't work excellently in every game (especially something more Tolkeinish), but like Scott, I find it an interesting thing to play with. Orcs are not monsters in most of my games -- they are just different creatures, different cultures.

Part of the reason I go this route is because I'm eager to reject the implicit racism of myth and legend that say that anything different and foreign isn't basically human. It's a modernism that I'm eager to embrace in most of my games (but, it must be said, not all).

So you would enjoy playing in a game that modeled the Israeli-Palastinian Conflict?

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

[Imaro]

Sorry, I don't see how this...

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.

and this...

Originally Posted by Jasperak

So you would enjoy playing in a game that modeled the Israeli-Palastinian Conflict?

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

are really all that different, IMO just different types of "therapy". Honestly I love the elitism of if you want to explore anything more than... me...BASH!...Orc you're trying to have a therapy session...

IMO it's akin to conversation...sometimes I wanna talk sports, other times I want to talk about the state of {fill in a particular race} in America. Both conversations can be interesting and entertaining but as long as they are I don't consider one subject "better" than the other. I am just glad to be multi-faceted enough that sports isn't the only subject of conversation I can appreciate. YMMV of course.

[Jasperak]

Originally Posted by Imaro

Sorry, I don't see how this...

[My Quote]

and this...

[Another Quote from me]

are really all that different, IMO just different types of "therapy". Honestly I love the elitism of if you want to explore anything more than... me...BASH!...Orc you're trying to have a therapy session...

Unless you consider Monopoly and Chess "therapy" your point is absurd.

[S'mon]

I played in a long term play by mail WW2 game where I played a Wehrmacht soldier; it was in the style of Sven Hassel. I did enjoy the moral ambivalence of playing a patriot fighting for my country, when my country was led by an evil regime.

[frankthedm]

When someone presents their opinion that a given monster is somehow supposed to represent a human civilization as a fact, it seriously hurts the chance of a good conversation.

[Imaro]

Originally Posted by Jasperak

Unless you consider Monopoly and Chess "therapy" your point is absurd.

Yeah, it's so obvious that it's stress therapy for you... and boardgames are generally accepted as beneficial in this.

[Imaro]

Originally Posted by frankthedm

When someone presents their opinion that a given monster is somehow supposed to represent a human civilization as a fact, it seriously hurts the chance of a good conversation.

Who did this?

[Dausuul]

In my games, the question seldom comes up, because the orcs are aggressors to whom the PCs are responding. It's usually a matter of self-defense, or defense of others; the PCs are effectively at war. (Either that, or they're an explicitly evil/amoral bunch who will just as happily slaughter humans and elves.) I don't subscribe to the "go into the dungeon and kill stuff for loot" model of DMing, so I don't have to tie myself in philosophical knots justifying it.

That said, if I were still running an edition where the paladin code had a mechanical impact, and a paladin PC deliberately killed a baby goblin, that paladin would fall.

I regard it as a mix of nature and nurture. In my world, most of the "evil races" are instinctively very aggressive, competitive, and violent (much more so than humans, who are not exactly a peaceable bunch). Their cultures reflect these instincts, which are further reinforced by the commands of their various deities. As a result, the overwhelming majority of orcs, goblins, ogres, bugbears, drow, et cetera, are evil.

However, it is possible for them to be otherwise. A member of an "evil race" raised among humans might manage to fit into human society, with the right adoptive parents and upbringing. It's like raising a wolf pup for a pet instead of a dog; it's not easy, you have to respect that it is a wild animal with a wild animal's instincts, and there will always be some danger... but you can do it.

A member of an evil race growing up in its own culture is far less likely to be non-evil, of course; the only way I could see that happening would be if the creature in question were essentially insane, and that insanity would spill over into other aspects of its behavior. In my world, Drizzt Do'Urden would be a delusional schizophrenic, the sort of guy who rants on street corners, except that instead of ranting about hellfire and the end of the world, he'd be ranting about redemption and compassion. That's what it would take to break him free of drow culture and mores.

(Although, to be fair, there's another possibility for Drizzt; he might simply be a throwback to the surface elves from whom the drow are descended. This is particularly likely when you consider that his father shared his sense of morality.)

[Silverblade The Ench]

"Moral Relativism" is bad to mix with D&D
Some settings are rough, more ambigious..like Dark Sun, so my players have had drug-dealing preserver-cleric and psychotically murderous gladiators for PCs, which is ok.
However, there are always consequences for things...and that should never be forgotten.

The drug-dealing PC wasn't evil, he was a hippy sort (by Athas standards!) and well, he had to make a living, he sold folk things to make them forget their harsh lives, but that were not what we'd call "hard drugs", he had no desire to harm or addict folk. In thas he would be quite a "good" guy actually.

As the game went on they'd knock heads with criminal gangs over his "business", and he gave up on that enterprise as he was making more money from adventuring. Over time he went from Neutral to Good as they left Athas and he found places where kindess etc etc, were common. His character evolved down his own path, as well played characters should as time passes.

The psychotic gladiator though became EVIL. He liked killing folk, and torturing them too, eventually...which was also fine. He only trusted his friend and was otherwise a complete "user" ot everyone else. Eventually he went from CN to CE. Thus, he finally lost control of the character as he became the avatar of a god of slaughter and butchery whos work he was actually doing and aided! (the god offered him help to defeat an opponent, and he accepted, and thus, the gladiator lsot control of himself, well what do you expect, the bargains of CE gods ain't exactly "nice" are they! lol)

See, that's what folk have ot understand about "evil". In standard D&D it's not just some berk who's bene driven nuts by events: no, it's a terribly malign force. Note the Abyss in 4th ed..that is NOT just some force of chaos, nope, the Elemental Chaos is "chaos", where as the Abyss is completely nihilistic destruction (Tharizdun wants to erase everything from existance!)

There are serious, dreadful repurcussions from messign with evil, such as selling your soul to an arcanoloth. They don't just want you to do a transaction, part of their bargain, if properly DMed, always makes the seller do some despicable act to seal the bargain and damn themselves. it's about corruption, not just killing.

As for orcs. Well, folk often have a bad idea about such things, thinking in 21 st century Western moral ideals, as we generally don't see wrong-doers as "evil", which is arguably true in a lot of cases (they are mentally distrubed to some degree), but some folk ARE "evil" in the RL: they chose to commit terirble acts, for pleasure for power etc while being totally sane.

That often results in them going insane eventually though, because the acts are so horrible, prey even on their consicence (which they try to deny doesn't exist), or fear drives them to paranoia and thus madness. They were not mad to begin with, however.

Human, RL cultures can drive societies to terrible acts, but most cultures and people are far more desirous of peaceful lives, despite what some think.
The reality is that lethal violence, except for food or self defence, is an abberation (otherwise we'd be up to our necks in murders!).

orcs and their ilk are COMPLETELY different (in most campaigns). They have an innate thirst for bloodshed. Now think of Human children who mostly want to have fun and enjoy play together (they may quarrel and sort out a pecking order, but real seriosu violence is very abnormal)
With orc children though, serious violence would be common. Acts of sadism too.

Many orc youngsters would die at each other's hands, unless strict supervision took place. Only the fit and ruthless would survive. So, orc fertility and the innate lust to kill, would create cultures who's majority would be WILLING, eager killers. Thats' a terrifying thought.

it is extremely rare for that to occur in Human societies, but when it does, ugh.
Look at Nazi Germany, with a culture innately geared for war, and very skilled at it, they caused immense carnage, even later in the war, they often inflicted much worse casualty ratios on the Allies, than we did on them. Only weight of numbers, supplies and air power kept us grinding them down.
While we may hate their crimes, you have got to admit they were damned good at war.
Their culture was geared towards organized violence. Such cultures are very damn dangerous, but ulitimately, nihilistic and parasitic.

Normal societies are not filled with war-desire.
Normal societies evolve and improve and spend their time on constructive pursuits. The reality is, that for a society to thrive and *improve*, to innovate, it must be a peacable one. War is not conducive to fertile minds and creativity that is sustainable. Difficult one to explain, but basically war leeches out advancement, societies constanlty at war cannot evolve and improve. Much of the WW2 innovatiosn came form pre-existing work, war actually stifles new, truly innovative work.
And it's the societies that empower the machinery of war.
So if your society is inward looking, paranoid etc etc, it slowly dgerades.

What does that mean for orcs? Well basically, all they CAN do is make war! They won't be creating new famring methods that would feed larger populations. They won't have friendly sharing of information that would increase creativity by orders of magnitude.
And so on.
So orc society would be stuck in a rut. Same with nearly any other such culture stuck in constant warfare.

This also goes for drow, too! They are intelligent, but they are so strife torn, so hateful, so power mad, so...evil! You won't have drow sharing tehcniques on magic, healing, etc etc, that would alter and improve their societies...which is exactly what Lolth wants.
She wants them stuck in an endless cycle of pointless internicine butchery and betrayal, hey,that's the nature of evil!


"evil" is *NOT* "oh they are just different, and misunderstood!" Nope, wrong!
The Balrog of LTOR is not some "extraplanar immortal", no, such horrors are not about the fear of losing one's life, but about facing that which is utterly wrong, a foul malignancy that threatens the very soul.
Death is something most adventutrers will face repeatedly, scary, yes, but the undead, demons etc, those bring home ot the characters the truly horrific nature of Evil.

D&D has a spirtual aspect to the settings, like it or not. if you have gods and ghosts an all such, then you have to accept that "good", "evil", "Law, "Chaos" and other concepts are not merely items for debate in a detached manner. If you play your characters well, they will have a terrifying fear of such things, even if brave.
The philosophies and factions of "Planescape" make perfect sense, in the end, it IS all about what you believe in.

DMs playing extremely evil foes should think of them wanting to drag the PCs down into the digusting abyss they inhabit, not merely kill them, for the PCs actions show their evil to be not all encompassing, that some folk aren't polluted by it, who burn brightly with honour and love...which the foe will hate more than the mere threat of the PCs combat skills!

So, just realize, you cannot have moral ambiguity, when you really have gods, demons, devils and ghosts running around! Maybe apprporiate for a low magic etc campaign, but not when the gods and evils plainly exist.

If a gnoll would not only kill your children, but sacrifice them to Yeenoghu and eat them, or the local priest of Tyr brings bakc your own dead child from the grave as a blessing....Good and Evil are really extremes for the characters of such worlds.
There is no place for atheism in much of D&D!

Accept that and ENJOY it! I play D&D to get away from the disgusting crap of this world, to have fun and play heroes...not Papers, Paychecks, Laywers and Collateral Damage!

[ProfessorPain]

Originally Posted by Jasperak

I consider it a challenge to participate in a thread like this and not get banned.

To the point, I cannot fathom how any person could consider a small group of orcs driving flaming wagons filled with pitch and tar into villages not evil. In stories and real life, it really is about us v. them, humans v. orcs. Only philosophers are allowed to stand on the sidelines and cast judgments. But remember, if the orcs see you as human, it doesn't matter if you identify with them, or feel their plight. Orcs see you as the enemy and will not stop to ask where your loyalties lie. Unless you become an orc, you are a human and fit for nothing more than food.

I think there is middle ground here. Obviously in discussions of morality, you are dealing with perspective. To the green tribe that lives in the moutnains slaughtering babies isn't evil, but to the red tribe living in the plains, slaughtering babies is most definitely evil. So there we have it, human moral systems are a product of individual cultures. But, I still think that doesn't mean all moral systems are equal, and therefore all morality just a matter of taste. There are consequences for the moral systems we embrace, and throwing your arms up in the air because there are so many, isn't a terribly good solution. I am not going to sit here and dictate what I think is good or bad to everyone; but I will say one way of life is better than another. There is some wiggle room: Situational Ethics. We may not be able to say, doing X is always wrong, because there may well be a situation where X is actually the best choice, but we can say that there are core principles we should use to guide our actions, and that some core princples are better than others.

Sorry, just had to get that out of the way.

On the subject of orcs. Their evil. I don't think they are genetically predisposed to evil though, as there have been cases of orcs (and half orcs) raised by human parents who went on to become Lawful Good Paladins. But I think there culture is evil, and most deserving of our contempt. I mean they view killing as an end, not a means. And they worship Grumsh (an evil god). How can their culture not be evil?

[Imaro]

Originally Posted by Silverblade The Ench

So, just realize, you cannot have moral ambiguity, when you really have gods, demons, devils and ghosts running around! Maybe apprporiate for a low magic etc campaign, but not when the gods and evils plainly exist.

If a gnoll would not only kill your children, but sacrifice them to Yeenoghu and eat them, or the local priest of Tyr brings bakc your own dead child from the grave as a blessing....Good and Evil are really extremes for the characters of such worlds.
There is no place for atheism in much of D&D!

Ay, berk...I think the Athar would like a word with you...

[Jasperak]

Originally Posted by Imaro

Yeah, it's so obvious that it's stress therapy for you... and boardgames are generally accepted as beneficial in this.

So is washing my car.

In my games orcs are EVIL. Baby orc will eventually grow up and be an EVIL adult orc that could use a sword.

I don't want Scott's moral relativism injected into the GAME I play. And I don't play well with players that would rather spend three hours discussing the nature of evil after my paladin has dispatched the orc women and children. Call it elitist or not, I do not play games when I want to analyze evil. I read Kant.

When I play D&D i want to rack up GPs, XPs, and tell stories about how it all went down. Anything else and I begin to think the GAME and its players are taking it/themselves too seriously.

[Jasperak]

Double Post

[S'mon]

Originally Posted by Silverblade The Ench

we generally don't see wrong-doers as "evil"

Speak for yourself, mate.

As for normal societies not desiring war; no, people often clamour for war. In primitive societies warfare is usually endemic. Nation-states get war fever. People like war, as long as they're winning.

[Rechan]

Originally Posted by Dausuul

In my games, the question seldom comes up, because the orcs are aggressors to whom the PCs are responding. It's usually a matter of self-defense, or defense of others; the PCs are effectively at war.

And what about in cases where the PCs are the aggressors, like invading a dragon's lair in order to score its loot, dragon be damned?

Unless monsters are Out There Being Evil, then invading their dungeon for loots and xp is being the aggressive robber kicking in the door and killing the thing in their house.