Dungeons & Dragons and the ethics of imaginary violence

[melichor]

Didn't see this posted anywhere else so:
http://www.hopesandfears.com/hopes/culture/video-games/216625-dungeons-dragons-violence-ethics

Some of the discussion in the article highlights why I highly discourage players playing evil PCs.

 

[ccs]

I assure you, plenty of good aligned characters are just as capable of picking fights & doing horrible things.
They don't torture the bar-keep & burn down the inn, but nobody bats an eye when it comes to genocide vs the orc village followed by looting the corpses....

In a recent 1e D&D game we played last year it turned out that several of the party members were evil, several were neutral, and a few were good. The inter-party problems were caused not by the 3 of us who were evil (my grey dwarf ftr/assassin - evil only because that's the only alignment open to assassins, an evil illusionist, and an evil 1/2orc fighter), but by a combination of the Good elf ftr/MU & the CN human barbarian. The CN 1/2orc archer (brother to the other 1/2orc) who loved shooting into melee didn't help any either (my solution to that was to simply NOT be in melee if I could help it).

My grey dwarf ftr/assassin - was on a job. The party? Were just people he was assigned to work with to get it done. There was no intent of treachery vs them. Granted, I didn't particularly care if they survived, but the job would definitely be easier if they did.... Nor was I worried about the loot. So long as I got an even cut everything would be cool. So it's STILL in my best interest for party members to survive - they can help carry more loot out than I could manage on my own.

The Illusionist? He was some sort of erratic, maniacal trickster with a fetish of cutting off thumbs.... He billed himself as a mage who had some new spells he wanted to test out. Well, OK, here's a mine full of goblins - that needed exterminating anyways. Have at them, just make sure to point that shadowy stuff away from us.... He obliged.
We never knew what AL Alex had written on the sheet, we just assumed it was CE or CN. I think he was evil.

The 1/2orc fighter (who turned out to actually be a cleric of Gruumsh! sp?) - Yes, he was N-evil, but he was mostly just greedy. He wanted the reward, knew he couldn't take it from the rest of the party, and secretly healed several of us.

The GOOD elven ftr/Mage on the other hand? Began plotting to kill the 1/2orcs almost as soon as play began. Just because they were 1/2 orcs. Didn't know anything about them.
And when he realized that I was more than what I seemed - after I slew an ogre by rolling %dice? Then he added me to his hit list. Because Assassins are EVIL!
He also encouraged & set it up so that the CN Barbarian thought the 1/2orcs and I were plotting against him.

And our N healbot cleric? He refused to take sides. If you were a PC & hurt he'd heal you. If you weren't a PC he'd hit you with a mace.

So 3 evil characters working together, 1 CN archer shooting into melees indiscriminately, 1 LG character trying to kill most of us, a CN Barbarian willingly being used as a proxy by the LG guy. And a N healbot who did nothing/allowed some of this crap to continue longer via healing the barbarian 9even though he WANTED the barbarian player to stop)....
End result: Mission failure due to forced party in-fighting.

And people think evil characters cause all the trouble.

 

[Jhaelen]

And people think evil characters cause all the trouble.

No, it's actually 'evil' players - and DM's that allow them to get away with it.

 

[Evenglare]

First, is there anything I'm missing in this article? It seems like a rehash with anecdotes of the big debate that's been going on for the past... what 40 or so years with the alignment charts?

Secondly, at my table I follow a similar rule that Improv uses. Improv theater has a sort of unspoken rule of adding to a scene to keep it moving. If you don't want to use those assumptions, you are better off not coming. Similarly in D&D there's an unstated rule in my group. Assumptions are such that if you want to play you need to work well with the party. I'm done with interparty conflict, at least on the super evil or chaotic scales. If you are going to be a difficult person who is just holding up the game, intentionally doing some stupid act that is sure to get the party killed, or you don't agree with the party's decision and walk away... then I don't need you in the party any more. Ain't nobody got time for that these days.

Is it railroading your perfectly envisioned super antagonistic character? Yes, yes it is. Do I care that you want to be a special snowflake that slows the game to a grinding halt when you want me, as the DM, to make us a special story just for you, while the others are cooperating? No, I don't really care at all. Either stop being difficult or leave. I only play maybe once every 2 months so that stuff doesn't fly with me.

 

[delericho]

Well, there is also this thread: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...-Dragons-and-the-ethics-of-imaginary-violence

It's fair to say I was unimpressed with the article. Short version: as long as you're talking imaginary violence, I don't think there are any ethical issues.

 

[Bagpuss]

It's fair to say I was unimpressed with the article. Short version: as long as you're talking imaginary violence, I don't think there are any ethical issues.

With the frequency of the number of people saying imaginary violence is wrong, I think that's something that needs to be regularly stated, even if it is obvious to most people here, and been said before.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

I generally don't mind evil characters, but I've taken to telling the players that no matter what, the group has to find a way to work together. It's okay to have debate and discussion, but the moment swords get drawn or the evil character starts going off on their own to pursue whatever agenda they've got, that's a bad thing.

What I do mind are the unaligned and neutral PCs that just use that as an excuse for evil acts. It's like, at least be honest about the nature of your character.

"Endless Hobgoblin Holocaust" ought to be a band or module name. Moral questions like "are orcs really evil?" tend to really bog a game down. Generally because it's usually one player wondering this, while the rest of the group just wants to have some fun.

 

[melichor]

For me as a DM when alignment matters: Actions speak very much louder than letters on a character sheet.

 

[melichor]

First, is there anything I'm missing in this article? It seems like a rehash with anecdotes of the big debate that's been going on for the past... what 40 or so years with the alignment charts?

Considering the increased scrutiny of violent events these days. All it will take is the wrong person to find out the perpetrator played or owns D&D (or other RPGs) and here comes the next Pat Pulling.
If it caused problems in the 80s, imagine how things could go off the rails in today's world of online outrage stemming from third hand hearsay.

 

[Mallus]

I once answered the question, "What do you want out of D&D?" (or any RPG, really) with, "A violent, whimsical storybook our characters can cavort in". I haven't come up with a better answer.

The question of the relationship between real-world ethics and the ethics inside a work of fiction is a complicated one. Therefore it's best debated late at night while drinking. Having a lit cigarette you can stab the ember around with for emphasis also helps, or would, if I didn't quit smoking, and you could still smoke in the bars of my city.

That said, you can, and my group certainly has used RPGs to explore ethics, sometimes with great & enjoyable results. But said ethical exploration is usually situational; in one D&D 4e session we had a surprisingly moving encounter where my paladin re-thought his strong arm tactics after seeing a goblin barmaid's response (because of the excellent acting of our DM playing her). In another session, however, we partially dismembered a wererat thief -- to teach her a lesson! -- not realizing she wouldn't just regenerate the grievous, instructional wounds we inflicted. That was played for laughs.

edit: and the lesson learned was "my paladin is really, really stupid".