General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
My 20+ years of experience with all sorts of players tells me this. A DM that has never see a person die...
I try to avoid this stuff in real life - I saw someone dying recently, a cyclist, they'd been run over by a lorry (truck) near my house, and the medics were trying to save them. The crushed bicycle was under the lorry. I walked on, I found out they'd died a few days later.
I guess as I get older I tend to want to avoid horror in my games as well as in real life.
I think I like a bit of moral relativism, even in my cosmic evil, at least for sentient evils. That's not to say that they aren't necessarily beings it's a good idea to not kill, if it comes down either to killing them or letting them continue their plans... it's just that perhaps, even capital E Evil can be redeemed. It may not be a quick redemption, or even likely, but perhaps it's possible. After all, what can change the nature of a man? Quite a bit, really. People do things for love, or due to horror, often out of fear, and occasionally because of random kindness and seeing the joy that results. They may start small, but even in our world, they have been shown to cause amazing things.
And for lesser evils, like orcs, it's not necessarily so much a matter of genetics so much as culture and upbringing. Perhaps the orcs are treated badly, even those raised by humans and therefore know the ins and outs of being a member of the local human village, and so end up hating the people who despise them. Plus, there's always at least three sides to every story, even one where there are only two people. There's the winner's story, the loser's story, and the truth which is generally a mix of both.
The thing is, I think heroic fantasy can co-exist nicely with a somewhat morally relativist world. There can be things which are almost universally regarded as being evil... like say killing for pleasure or money, kidnapping, or torture... That means PCs can be heroes without being "perfect" in any sense of the means. It also means they can be villains without being mustache-twirlers either. Perhaps they are too committed to a cause to care about the damage they're causing or have caused, or maybe they simply haven't thought about the consequences of their actions.
The trick is knowing where to place the line. And having game mechanics that depend heavily on where you are in relation to that line is a problem because the line is a bit blurry and indistinct. The fact is, it's entirely plausible that good characters will disagree on the orc baby problem. In fact, it's pretty likely that such characters will occasionally have arguments like that, because being Good generally requires in part that one be willing to engage in a self-examination of one's behavior and a willingness to check oneself and keep from going too far, and due to differences in upbringing and culture, it's likely no one will agree entirely on where that line is. It's generally only evil characters that don't care about such things, but that's because they've generally adopted a position that only their opinion matters and theirs is the only or one of a few lives worth anything, and such a position means that one will feel such issues aren't worth caring about.
So if you want your heroic fantasy to remain heroic fantasy yet have a few aspects of moral relativism, have the PCs go up against obviously morally wrong individuals most of the time. It's just that occasionally, you show how the orcs aren't totally evil, and perhaps the orc raids are as much the villagers' fault as they are the orcs'. Just enough to bring some ambiguity.
And the thing is, D&D's ripe for such ambiguity. It owes just as much debt to Conan as it does Frodo. And even the Silmarillion, the Hobbit and LotR, possibly the most famous works of modern heroic fantasy ever (I'm not sure if Harry Potter counts) and certainly two of those works upon which rests all of the genre as it is today, has elves that end up being greedy murderers solely out of their own desires, and one of the most well-known evil characters redeemed somewhat out of a desire to change, albeit imperfectly so. Likewise, Conan spends his time doing good at least as often as he does evil. So why must D&D worlds be places where good and evil are totally objective forces? Sauron, Morgoth, and Saruman are evil because they choose to value their desires over the well-being of others. The orcs of LotR are evil because they are twisted until they enjoy inflicting pain and causing sorrow, not because there was a force that said, "Here is the line between Good and Evil. Do Not Cross." The thing is, as the heroes of LotR generally only face evils which are truly evil, the tone remains rooted in heroic fantasy. There's hints of moral relativism there, but they're not used in such a way that it becomes a totally morally relativist world. There is still a clear sense of purpose and right and wrong, but the whole world does not have so much clarity of good and evil, beyond the choices various individuals make. Look at the central plot behind the Hobbit: a bunch of dwarves decide to go steal a treasure for no real reason at all other than they want it. That is not a Good act. It is, at best, Neutral. And that only because Smaug is so clearly Evil. Admittedly, there is a force of absolute Good in the setting, but the being is largely impersonal and not a central part of the saga of the elves, humans, dwarves and hobbits that comprise the LotR sagas. Likewise, Conan's world is generally morally relativist, and again we see that there's some room for heroic fantasy there. So clearly, they can co-exist. The real question, at least in D&D is thus "For best play, should you let absolute evil exist?"
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack of Shadows
No one has suggested sentient magic items yet. It's one thing when your sword talks to you, it's quite another when it calls you "Dad".
The trick is knowing where to place the line. And having game mechanics that depend heavily on where you are in relation to that line is a problem because the line is a bit blurry and indistinct. The fact is, it's entirely plausible that good characters will disagree on the orc baby problem.
Good men can do bad things for the right reasons. Bad men can do good things for the wrong reasons. And being good doesn't prevent one from lapsing, and being bad doesn't prevent one from seeing reason.
There's an addage for writers when it comes to antagonists: Every villain is a hero in his own book. To him, he is completely justified, and doing the right thing. But the story is usually from the protagonist's perspective. The less overtly Black the villain is, the more interesting he is - some of the most interesting antagonists aren't even evil, they are merely competing or have conflicting goals with the antagonist. If the story was slightly different, the two would be allies.
That's part of the reason that Black and White doesn't do much for me: it breaks my suspension of disbelief. If something is too easily defined, then it feels fake. It comes across, to me, as just wishful thinking. Things just aren't that easy. The other part is it's boring to me. The Hero is Good, he will always be Good, and Good triumphs because it's nice that way. There's not a lot of room for complexity and depth. Superman vs. Watchmen.
There are so many ways that I want to answer this post that I think it may take me multiple posts. The most important point I think I can make is this. Unless the DM or campaign designer has the dramatic construction talents of Shakespeare, any attempt to create serious reflection will fall far short of inducing thought-provoking questions on evil and morality.
My 20+ years of experience with all sorts of players tells me this. A DM that has never see a person die, unlocked a house only to find the former occupant decaying on the couch, or ever pointed a loaded weapon at some else in anger or defense cannot seriously set up a situation that would induce thought-provoking emotions before a laugh from me.
With 4e you have tried to make the game easier and more fun to play. That was one of the design goals right? So you want to take EVIL out of the equation in an effort to provoke an "ah-ha" moment of reflection. In my experience that only forces the dice to rest on the table while a player argues with the DM about why he shouldn't lose his paladin status for killing an orc baby.
The more I think about it, the more I think that the holiest of sacred cows in D&D is its Heroic Fantasy base. It is not Warhammer Fantasy, It is not Paranoia. Your moral relativism would have us question if Tharizdun cultists are just misguided and need to be reeducated. A Lawful Good paladin cannot go into a Tharizdun temple and start slaughtering cultists just because that's the adventure the DM comes up with, just like he cannot go killing orc babies.
I understand that others enjoy the character development that occurs when characters and their players are presented with difficult moral questions. Thats cool for them, but not for me. Moral questions generally get in the way of XP and beer.
You do understand I am writing about what I want and not as where we are taking the future of the game, right?
Good men can do bad things for the right reasons. Bad men can do good things for the wrong reasons. And being good doesn't prevent one from lapsing, and being bad doesn't prevent one from seeing reason.
There's an addage for writers when it comes to antagonists: Every villain is a hero in his own book. To him, he is completely justified, and doing the right thing. But the story is usually from the protagonist's perspective. The less overtly Black the villain is, the more interesting he is - some of the most interesting antagonists aren't even evil, they are merely competing or have conflicting goals with the antagonist. If the story was slightly different, the two would be allies.
That's part of the reason that Black and White doesn't do much for me: it breaks my suspension of disbelief. If something is too easily defined, then it feels fake. It comes across, to me, as just wishful thinking. Things just aren't that easy. The other part is it's boring to me. The Hero is Good, he will always be Good, and Good triumphs because it's nice that way. There's not a lot of room for complexity and depth. Superman vs. Watchmen.
But the thing is, this isn't the villain's book, it is the heroes'. Not saying there shouldn't be some gray, but for me, nothing beats a really bad, bad guy.
Usually favoring characters who are some sort of divine champions inclined to do good, and not being a DM myself, I find this thread refreshing. From my own meager experience, I tried to find what sort of world the DM has in mind when making a character, and have him educate me on the particulars my character might know. If belonging to a sect or a church, I wanted to know of any possible enmities the PC should be aware of as a member of the aforementioned sect/church, striving to incorporate it in play. When the character had no such ties, I simply focuse on my own partymates and the challenges presented. Usually it became clear that things are not as simple as they seemed to be... which lead to some interesting RP-moments.
Within my first group we had many debates on the nature of evil, but one debate definetly stands out in my mind. We ended up discussing how a current position or state of affairs may influence one's behavior, and ended agreeing that even a truly evil dragon would treat his offspring with love, affection and utmost care - regardless of being a mighty, menacing threat that should be swiftly dealt with in the eyes of the others. It's just a special case scenario for the dragon. So, to the dragonhunters he's still a viable target and a challenging monster they should survive an encounter with, but to the hatchling the same dragon's just a protective, caring parent. Therefore, even if the dragon gave hell to the ignorant travellers and helpless peasants on his usual day, we agreed that any threat or actual harm to the hatchling would cause a vengeful retibution out of the usual proportions, and the dragon's parental role would probably be the true motive for it. We might have been mistaken, of course... it happens.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rechan
[snip] Which is the Sect is the True one? No one knows. Oh sure, each sect thinks they have it right. Thus, you have disagreements in the Church, and the different Sects can cause inter-faith wars or schisms, etc. It could even be the Duty of one sect to keep another sect in check, and so on.
You made me dig up a write-up of FR deity Kelemvor I found when I did some browsing after finishing the Avatar series. Were I to DM the Realms, I'd base the deity off it: I find it both believeable and intriguing.
I don't get where people come from thinking D&D has always been about moral absolutes. I mean, this is a game that had Thief as a character class. Half of the famous AD&D reading list features morally ambiguous protagonists. Paladins are supposed to be morally absolute, but even then, it's understood they have a tough job to do in a world full of real evil.
I don't get where people come from thinking D&D has always been about moral absolutes. I mean, this is a game that had Thief as a character class. Half of the famous AD&D reading list features morally ambiguous protagonists. Paladins are supposed to be morally absolute, but even then, it's understood they have a tough job to do in a world full of real evil.
And the thief is meant to reflect the chaotic part of the alignment spectrum. Since D&D it has been pretty much about moral absolutes. That doesn't mean there can't be nuance within each given alignment, and it certainly doesn't mean people need to go around playing lawful stupid chracters, but the rules as written have always embraced a view where alignment reflects larger cosmic forces and how you are 'aligned' with them. Personally, I have taken a much more middle of the road approach in my own games. In high fantasy and operatic campaigns the system works just fine, but I have to admit, I have never really been a fan of it. Not a moral relativist by any stretch, (ed: in fact most moral relativists I have met are not true moral relativists, as their moral relativism is grounded in fundamental moral assumptions about power, fairness, equality and exploitation), but I do like texture to my characters. In my campaigns, evil and good exist, most people think they are doing good. Very few actively set out to perform evil deeds (though this does happen when you have Evil Gods at work). Still, at the end of the day, everyone's actions are viewed through a moral lens.
I don't get where people come from thinking D&D has always been about moral absolutes. I mean, this is a game that had Thief as a character class. Half of the famous AD&D reading list features morally ambiguous protagonists. Paladins are supposed to be morally absolute, but even then, it's understood they have a tough job to do in a world full of real evil.
D&D's always had an interesting thematic tension between high fantasy and S&S - which you see most prominently in all the talk of heroism and defeating Evil in a game about murdering people and looting their corpses. I'm not sure the authorial intent is for these all to go into one game - contrast with Exalted, for instance, where the use of high-flowing language to describe vicious actions is deliberately ironic - but just to keep both options open. Ravenloft demands one morality and Dark Sun another.
4e seems to swing more towards the S&S side of the spectrum, which of course makes me happy.
D&D's always had an interesting thematic tension between high fantasy and S&S - which you see most prominently in all the talk of heroism and defeating Evil in a game about murdering people and looting their corpses. I'm not sure the authorial intent is for these all to go into one game -
That is what I have generally assumed. Save the world, make a buck, try to muddle out of some really dubious legal and moral situations. A given party might have a mix of a number of alignments. The Dragonlance stories seemed to be written under this premise; high fantasy, but with plenty of interesting things going on morally. I think you can definitely see that tension in the Arthurian mythos, which is an ancestor to both genres. Arthur led his knights in conquest and glory, but eventually undertook a spiritual quest in order to restore his kingdom. In my mind, the thematic tension was written in.
I don't put up with moral relativism in games or real life. There are universal rules of right and wrong. I'm with C.S. Lewis on this one.
Now, sussin' out what's right and what's wrong can be interesting talk, but I'm with Jasperak when I consider it agora-talk, not game-table-talk. Games and serious ethical discussion just don't mix well.
And the rest of DarkKestral's post is exactly why I feel that way. Those too-many too-long paragraphs? Not what I want at the game-table. Sorry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rechan
That's part of the reason that Black and White doesn't do much for me: it breaks my suspension of disbelief. If something is too easily defined, then it feels fake. It comes across, to me, as just wishful thinking. Things just aren't that easy.
That's why we have Cosmic Evil. It makes it easy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rechan
The other part is it's boring to me. The Hero is Good, he will always be Good, and Good triumphs because it's nice that way. There's not a lot of room for complexity and depth. Superman vs. Watchmen.
D&D doesn't need moral ambiguity to be fun. Cosmic Evil is one of the design constraints that allows fun.
I liked reading Watchmen (or watching Buffy the Vampire Slayer). They're thought provoking. But I don't "play" those. I play Chess. And there's a not a whole lot of moral ambiguity in Chess, is there? We don't ask if the Rook really deserved that, or if Queen vs. Pawn is "fair." Chess isn't about that. It's about the fair competition between players. So is basketball, go, etc. D&D has some neat roleplaying aspects that allow the players to define what "success" looks like, but fundamentally it's a game. In games you accept certain rules and constraints, then take no prisoners until you win. That's called "play", and it's pretty fun.
And this brings me back to another Jasperak alluded to: Most DMs aren't Alan Moore or Joss Whedon, let alone Thomas Aquinas. And the chance that the DM is exploring new ethical ground is pretty slim. That's some well covered ground, if you know what I mean.
Now, just to make sure I've stated my position here:
1) Sometimes the players are tricked. That guy who hired them was an Evil Necromancer (whoops!). But that's not moral ambiguity. That's "Darn, we got suckered!". Once you know he's a Necromancer you can proceed quickly to Kill Him & Take His Stuff.
2) Sometimes you ally with one Evil to fight another Evil (like when Buffy worked with Spike in Season 3 to defeat Angel). That's not moral ambiguity. That's enlightened self interest and convenience. It doesn't make Spike good.
3) Sometimes the group decides pre-campaign that it's going to be an S&S campaign where might makes right and the best things in life is to sweep aside your enemies and hear the lamentations of their women. That's not moral ambiguity either. It's amorality. Conan doesn't ask those questions. Alignment is not used in these games.
__________________ I don't "tell stories" when I play D&D. I adventure. Afterward, when the gold is counted and the bodies piled high, we may tell stories about how it all went down. Or not.
That's not moral relativism. Kirk doesn't question if the Federation is right or if the klingons deserve whatever they are trying to take. Kirk is the cowboy with the white hat. That to me is heroic fantasy. That is what I want from my entertainment.
That's all well and good, and I'm positive that D&D should continue to provide a place for that, because it's very mythic and very archetypal. I enjoy that on occasion, too, and I'm glad I can turn to D&D to provide that for me (even if, for me, it's usually things like demons and devils providing it more often than orcs and goblins). Normally I think videogames do it better, but every once in a while, even in a campaign filled with shades of gray, you just want to take ALL the mofos out.
I don't really think ANYONE, even in a "shades of gray" campaign, is interested in tackling The Nature of Evil in Reality or anything. I mean, that's the virtue of D&D being fiction -- whether or not the orcs are justified is a fictional consideration, made by a fictional character, who then does fictional things based on his fictional beliefs. Rather, the "player challenge" of adhering to a character's belief system -- even when it might harm innocents or thwart the party's goals -- or of abandoning that belief system and dealing with those consequences, is an interesting challenge to me.
Is it cool if Scott and I go play a game where PC's have to make difficult moral choices? I mean, I know you might not enjoy it, but hey, we don't need to be Shakespeare to deal with a little fantasy relativity any more than you need to be Tolkien to deal with a little fantasy absolutism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott
You do understand I am writing about what I want and not as where we are taking the future of the game, right?
Consider me insulted and done with the thread.
Aw, c'mon, man! I don't think he was trying to be insulting, just kind of describing why it's not for him, which is fair enough. Sometimes your cultists of evil ARE mislead, after all. Or in it for different reasons. After all, in one of my games, the PC's may start by fighting the cultists, but they might end teamed up with those cultists against the thing which is CAUSING the cultists to form in the first place, which will solve the problem of the cult without forcing the PC's to hunt down and kill every individual cultist.
Jas isn't a fan of that kind of challenge. For me, that's okay -- just like it's okay if people don't like puzzles (for instance), or if combat is boring for a player or two. Part of what is generally cool about D&D in principle is that it can adapt to different play styles like that.
That's all well and good, and I'm positive that D&D should continue to provide a place for that, because it's very mythic and very archetypal. I enjoy that on occasion, too, and I'm glad I can turn to D&D to provide that for me (even if, for me, it's usually things like demons and devils providing it more often than orcs and goblins). Normally I think videogames do it better, but every once in a while, even in a campaign filled with shades of gray, you just want to take ALL the mofos out.
Is it cool if Scott and I go play a game where PC's have to make difficult moral choices, though? I mean, I know you might not enjoy it, but hey, we don't need to be Shakespeare to deal with a little fantasy relativity any more than you need to be Tolkien to deal with a little fantasy absolutism.
You are absolutely right KM. D&D has always embraced the way different players want to play the game. I hope it continues that way.
__________________ "Your imagination, limited only by your chosen powers"
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.
__________________ Nobody built like me, I designed myself ...as an
I don't understand why roleplaying games aren't the perfect format to talk about ontological evil. First, the fact that it is a game means there's never the risk of stepping on people's toes, unlike if you talked about say the united states and its treatment of indigenous natives, or the bath party and its treatment of kurds. Conversations in which you bring in historical anecdotes have a tendency of heating a convesation. But is there anyone whose going to be morally offended on a orcs behalf if we stereotype a little.
Certainly not in the middle of a session, obviously, where politics and religion should be curtailed to keep the trail on its well greased rails, but afterwards, really whats the harm. I tend to think that people are too quick to be offended by these conversations.
Either they accuse you of being pedantic or relativistic, which is obviously redundant, because of course you are, that's the whole point of using a fantasy game to bring up philosophical conversations, and why do they got to be a spoiled sport. Or they draw a line in the sand and say right is right, wrong is wrong, which is kind of silly to me. Kind of like playing a roleplaying game called "offices & taxes" I mean if you can afford some imagination in your hacky/ slashy why not in your quasi-roleplayed discussions on moral philosophy.
anyway, if i was going to have a discuss the concept of evil in dungeons and dragons, and I am...
then i would point out that slavoj zizek in his book violence, i thought did a spectacularilly good job of categorizing violence down in two three themes
symbolic violence
objective violence
subjective violence
symbolic violence relates to the nature of a system of symbols that makes language inherently violent.
subjective violence is subjectivized obviously. Like Saddam Hussein or the eye of Veccna,
and objective violence is a cultural system in which the very mechanisms of culture create creates an architecture of violence, like american ghettos, or third world countries, or orc villages.
In response to an earlier poster who was talking about evil cosmologies vs. relativity and relating it to pillaging, raping, farting, dirty orcs, i 'd like to point out that objective evil/subjective evil aren't necessarilly dualistic, but linked. Certainly, orcs are cosmologically evil, much as in the the same way terrorists are cosmologically evil, because we create the nature of our cosmos. This is a difficult idea for us to grasp because we like to think of ourselves as subjectivized, as agents which I think we are I'm not disputing that, i'm just pointing out that an ontologically evil orc, and an orc nurtured into evil are not necessarilly to different things. To use a knee jerk liberalism analogy, i might say, "look of course orcs are evil, you'd be evil too if you were forced to live on the steppes and eat your own kind, and was a dissadvantaged orc youth, never getting a proper education, giving up on your dreams etc." orcs are evil because they have to be. Because we made them that way. but they are still cosmologically evil, and as someone who is basically a slave to the system, i'm not going to stay up nights over how many I've murdered.
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.
They don't. People that make deals with the Devils or Cthulhu do not fit in as player characters in heroic fantasy. Thats like saying Conan and Thulsa Doom are sitting in a tavern... and that's a S&S example. Gandalf and Sarumon sitting at a table waiting for their next adventure is just as absurd.
__________________ "Your imagination, limited only by your chosen powers"
Last edited by Jasperak; 9th February 2009 at 01:53 AM..
Reason: clarification by adding another example
I don't understand why roleplaying games aren't the perfect format to talk about ontological evil. First, the fact that it is a game means there's never the risk of stepping on people's toes, unlike if you talked about say the united states and its treatment of indigenous natives, or the bath party and its treatment of kurds. Conversations in which you bring in historical anecdotes have a tendency of heating a convesation. But is there anyone whose going to be morally offended on a orcs behalf if we stereotype a little.
Certainly not in the middle of a session, obviously, where politics and religion should be curtailed to keep the trail on its well greased rails, but afterwards, really whats the harm. I tend to think that people are too quick to be offended by these conversations.
Either they accuse you of being pedantic or relativistic, which is obviously redundant, because of course you are, that's the whole point of using a fantasy game to bring up philosophical conversations, and why do they got to be a spoiled sport. Or they draw a line in the sand and say right is right, wrong is wrong, which is kind of silly to me. Kind of like playing a roleplaying game called "offices & taxes" I mean if you can afford some imagination in your hacky/ slashy why not in your quasi-roleplayed discussions on moral philosophy.
anyway, if i was going to have a discuss the concept of evil in dungeons and dragons, and I am...
then i would point out that slavoj zizek in his book violence, i thought did a spectacularilly good job of categorizing violence down in two three themes
symbolic violence
objective violence
subjective violence
symbolic violence relates to the nature of a system of symbols that makes language inherently violent.
subjective violence is subjectivized obviously. Like Saddam Hussein or the eye of Veccna,
and objective violence is a cultural system in which the very mechanisms of culture create creates an architecture of violence, like american ghettos, or third world countries, or orc villages.
In response to an earlier poster who was talking about evil cosmologies vs. relativity and relating it to pillaging, raping, farting, dirty orcs, i 'd like to point out that objective evil/subjective evil aren't necessarilly dualistic, but linked. Certainly, orcs are cosmologically evil, much as in the the same way terrorists are cosmologically evil, because we create the nature of our cosmos. This is a difficult idea for us to grasp because we like to think of ourselves as subjectivized, as agents which I think we are I'm not disputing that, i'm just pointing out that an ontologically evil orc, and an orc nurtured into evil are necessarilly to different things. To use a knee jerk liberalism analogy, i might say, "look of course orcs are evil, you'd be evil too if you were forced to live on the steppes and eat your own kind, and was a dissadvantaged orc youth, never getting a proper education, giving up on your dreams etc." orcs are evil because they have to be. Because we made them that way.
One think I like about moral relativism in our campaign stories is the classic of the vaillain who may well be thoroughly evil, yet he is the product of the violence dealt to him because people in the D&D world follow the guidelines that if it is always evil, we can kill it. As for whether D&D deals with moral relativity, I think it does. At the very least 3E did extensively, especially in BoED but also in both its campaign settings, mainly FR (Eberron is far more about trope reversal than moral relativity imo). The story of Obould and the orcs of the North, the Empyrean Trilogy, Paul S.Kemp's books on Erevis Cale are just some examples of that and they all are part of D&D. Even 2E had that also. Personally when I read Faces of Evil, I very much started to challenge the notion that even evil outsiders are inherently evil but rather more the products of an extremely cruel society.
So yes, I think that moral relativism is really easily applicable in any D&D campaign. The important thing, the only important thing in D&D after all, is to tailor the game to your group. Some groups can manage to have campaigns where they agonize over killing baby orcs just fine. That doesn't change realism. Sure the evil cultists of Tharizdun are redeemable. And in the night by the campfire, the PC can remember that one of them used to be a friend. But they are hostile to society and dangerous to many others. If the PCs had overwhelming force and could actually capture them they should, but most likely they have a far better chance to kill them and even though it is regretable, it is still needed. But when the PCs kill a creature just because it is evil, without any knowledge of said creature being a threat to themselves or others, they should put unaligned in their character sheets.
Moral relativism is not a cease and desist order to all actions of violence. All it does is make sure the players actually have a motive for killing things.
Last edited by Nymrohd; 9th February 2009 at 01:53 AM..
One thing about evil in dungeons and dragons is that there are really more then just one kind of evil, and evil, even in the crunch mechanics of dungeons and dragons doesn't necessarily fit cleanly into the alignment axis of 3.5. Take for example the evil of orcs and hobgoblins as opposed to the evil of cultists. Most cultist and orcs would be placed in the alignment of CE, but the difference between the two is quite large, so large in fact that, though it is possible for me to imagine playing the role of an orc in a campaign, (in fact I did so in an evil campaign a DM once ran, and it was a blast); it is almost impossible for me to imagine playing the role of a death cultist. Death cult evil is either thematically nihilistic or demonistic, it is spiritual in the sense that it wishes to expose some sort of core trauma in the way the game world operates (with the laws of nature being rescinded, the dead rising from the earth, gigantic maggots devouring cities for instance). Orcs, on the other hand, rely on a marxist historicist understanding of the universe. I mean in almost all fantasy I've played orcs always exist as some sort of Balkan or Russian steppe other. They are always outside the community of nations that make up elves, dwarfs, humans. Orcs are evil like Neco Bellic in Grand Theft Auto 4 is evil, therefore orcs are much easier to subjectized, because we can easily shift our perspective into being that of the other, the immigrant, the abject, etc.
Cult evil is incredibly hard to subjectivize. I mean how do you play a member of the ebon triad? The resistance that the cult member has to being a PC trope is interesting. You could probably write a very nice paper about that.
![The Problem of Evil [Forked From Ampersand: Wizards & Worlds]](http://www.enworld.org/forum/iconimages/general-rpg-discussion/problem-evil-forked-ampersand-wizards-worlds_ltr.gif)
I don't think he was trying to be insulting, just kind of describing why it's not for him, which is fair enough. Sometimes your cultists of evil ARE mislead, after all. Or in it for different reasons. After all, in one of my games, the PC's may start by fighting the cultists, but they might end teamed up with those cultists against the thing which is CAUSING the cultists to form in the first place, which will solve the problem of the cult without forcing the PC's to hunt down and kill every individual cultist. 
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
