Do your Political Views shape how your villains and heroes act?

[Shasarak]

Yes he's evil, but he rationalizes his evil, whereas Steppenwolf doesn't bother and doesn't care, he just wants what he wants.

I would say that they both rationalise. If I had to put it in DnD terms Thanos would be more LE compared to Steppenwolfs NE.

 

[Gradine]

To echo this, not only does not have an impact or bearing the policies of governing a polity, but it may not even be about the policies of governing a polity.

The vast majority of conflicts that I consider important aren't political conflicts. In my invented setting, the vast majority of invented governments have no bearing on nor are they intended to be comment on real world governments or my preferred real world policies or political structures. Indeed, many of the invented governments of my setting are literally impossible in the real world. For example, it is not possible in the real world - as I think most of us will agree - to have a government were the dead literally rule over the living, and where all legislative and judicial positions in the government are filled by ghosts. So questions about that form of governance really can't have direct bearing on the real world anyway (though of course, analogies could be found and explored).

But besides which, rarely do I have a player - even those with degrees in political science - who are mostly interested in exploring governance and legality in their play. Even to the most politically knowledgeable of my players, such matters are typically viewed only as a backdrop to the story of passing interest and not the core matters of play. I can't imagine most games of D&D are fundamentally about designing a perfect political system and/or passing legislation.

Again, this is making the same mistake of taking a very narrow and short-sighted approach as to what does or does not compose "politics". My games also rarely if ever involve governance, legislation, or jurisprudence, but they certainly include politics. Is Mad Max: Fury Road not political because it doesn't ever explicitly detail Immortan Joe's social contract with his followers? Is Star Wars: The Last Jedi not political because no legislatures argue the legality or constitutionality of the policies enacted by the First Order and the Resistance? Is Star Wars: The Phantom Menace a more political film simply because it does include scenes of this nature?

Is Ridley Scott's Alien not a political movie?

 

[Celebrim]

The problem with these analogies is that religion and sports don't ultimately impact everyone (I suppose the argument could be made for religion in a metaphysical sense, but let's stick with just this plane of existence for the time being), and certainly not in the sense that politics do. And let's not forget that politics pervade religion, sports, what people choose or do not choose to eat... basically everything. Everything is politics.

Because politics are so ultimately pervasive, all-encompassing, and impactful, the method by which one chooses to navigate or engage with politics (up to and including the choice not to engage with it) is necessarily a political choice.

That's not to say that pop culture (including games) can't represent some form of escapism. Everybody needs a little escapism every now and then. But the act of choosing to engage in escapism is also, in itself, a political act. Not that that choice necessarily says anything about that person or their politics, that's always going to be contextual at best. But I've found the best way to move through life (more like the best way to continue to grow as a person, it's actually an extremely anxious way to move through life ) is to continually examine the intent and impact of my choices, as well as the way the rest of world has influenced my decision making.

In the context of the OP, it means sometimes asking: "Why did I design that villain that way? How did my players react to it? Why did they all come to such a quick conclusion that the character's actions were villainous in the first place?"

I mean, if we wanted to really strictly just look at D&D design and alignment, there is no universal morality nor ethics, and both of these concepts (and our practical applications of them, including the contextual exceptions we all make to them on a daily basis) tie directly into our cultural and personal politics. Without politics we'd ultimately have nothing to fall back on to determine what Evil even meant, or who could or could not be defined as heroes or villains.

One thing I enjoy about talking with you is your refreshing earnest honesty.

If I had sought to put a strawman of my own devising in your mouth, I could not have conceived of one so thoroughly suited to my purposes.

Thank you.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

To view things politically is to choose to wear a particular set of spectacles; we could equally choose to put on psychological, religious, anthropological or sociological spectacles.

When I play games these days, I prefer to wear my fantastic spectacles.

 

[Umbran]

Certainly, though with the understanding that this does, ultimately, only prove my point

Hardly. There are multiple (at least three) meanings of "political" in play. Your point is only proven if they are conflated, but they aren't actually the same.

 

[Lanefan]

Hardly. There are multiple (at least three) meanings of "political" in play. Your point is only proven if they are conflated, but they aren't actually the same.

So what is it when the players around the table take a quick vote on which pizza place to order from, or when the PCs run by those same players take a quick vote on whether to go up or down at the staircase in the dungeon, other than personal-scale politics?

 

[Bawylie]

So what is it when the players around the table take a quick vote on which pizza place to order from, or when the PCs run by those same players take a quick vote on whether to go up or down at the staircase in the dungeon, other than personal-scale politics?

Voluntary cooperation toward a shared goal.

 

[Jhaelen]

The latter is entirely human, based in interesting human psychology, visible in many places in human history, and also textbook capital-E Evil.

Is it, though? This is exactly the kind of attitude I've seen in plenty of Paladin PCs. They don't mind committing genocide if they believe a species to be 'inherently evil'. Thanks to D&D's crappy alignment system this works perfectly fine.

I can not think of any famous iconic DnD villain that is just a misguided good person.

And what does this tell you about D&D's villains? Most of them _are_ one-dimensional and cartoonish. The better ones at least have an interesting background, e.g. Dragonlance's Lord Soth or Strahd von Zarovich (although his tragic back-story was retro-fitted). In Eberron there's the Lord of Blades who is a fairly ambiguous character.
In 13th Age there's the Crusader Icon that perfectly personifies what I consider an interesting villain. Here's a quote from the 'Common Knowledge' about him in the 13th Age Core Rules:

If the enemy of your enemy is your friend, then the Crusader is everybody’s friend because demons are everybody’s enemy.
The Crusader, however, is the sort of friend who will burn your house to the ground if he finds it tactically necessary.

Would you consider Thanos from the Avengers 3 movie to be a misguided villain?

Yes, that's the kind of 'misguided' villain that I meant.

 

[5ekyu]

Is it, though? This is exactly the kind of attitude I've seen in plenty of Paladin PCs. They don't mind committing genocide if they believe a species to be 'inherently evil'. Thanks to D&D's crappy alignment system this works perfectly fine.
And what does this tell you about D&D's villains? Most of them _are_ one-dimensional and cartoonish. The better ones at least have an interesting background, e.g. Dragonlance's Lord Soth or Strahd von Zarovich (although his tragic back-story was retro-fitted). In Eberron there's the Lord of Blades who is a fairly ambiguous character.
In 13th Age there's the Crusader Icon that perfectly personifies what I consider an interesting villain. Here's a quote from the 'Common Knowledge' about him in the 13th Age Core Rules:

Yes, that's the kind of 'misguided' villain that I meant.

"Bad villains think they are evil or wrong or doing bad things.
Good villains think they are good or or right or doing the right things.
Great villain **are** good or right or doing righteous things."

 

[Shasarak]

And what does this tell you about D&D's villains? Most of them _are_ one-dimensional and cartoonish.

That is a fair description. A cartoonish game lives and dies on its cartoonish villains and DnD has certainly has some scenery chewing ones over the years.

The better ones at least have an interesting background, e.g. Dragonlance's Lord Soth or Strahd von Zarovich (although his tragic back-story was retro-fitted). In Eberron there's the Lord of Blades who is a fairly ambiguous character.
In 13th Age there's the Crusader Icon that perfectly personifies what I consider an interesting villain. Here's a quote from the 'Common Knowledge' about him in the 13th Age Core Rules:

I love Lord Soth and there is no way you can classify him as misguided. He would probably crush your throat if he heard you make the suggestion.

The creators of Strahd have been clear that they view him as a monster with no redeemable qualities. He is no sparkling Twilight Vampire or Emo Vampire the Masquerade Vampire.

Yes, that's the kind of 'misguided' villain that I meant.

When you said misguided I did not think you meant one that was mentally retarded. But what would you expect from a Cartoon villain afterall?