Piracy And Other Malfeasance

[KYRON45]

It's not like this thread represents any broadly held philosophies on RPGing. It only represents the people in the thread talking specifically about the subject. It isn't "all moral conundrums" -- this thread is intentionally about moral conundrums. It's like a selection bias elemental.

So relax and go bask in the positivity of the PHB wizard art thread...

Regular people critiquing the subjective value of art....LETS GO!!!

 

[KYRON45]

It's not like this thread represents any broadly held philosophies on RPGing. It only represents the people in the thread talking specifically about the subject. It isn't "all moral conundrums" -- this thread is intentionally about moral conundrums. It's like a selection bias elemental.

So relax and go bask in the positivity of the PHB wizard art thread...

 

[Voadam]

Right but do you call someone in D&D "evil" if they make their living robbing and murdering others?

If someone's business plan is to murder people I generally call them an assassin or a hitman or a murderer.

I generally think of Robin Hood as in a different moral category even though he is a bandit engaged in armed robbery.

 

[Willie the Duck]

There was a time when you just grabbed your Mountain Dew and some Cheetos and crawled into the hole and smashed monsters and bad guys. Now it seems it's all moral conundrums and your definition of things vs. every one else's definition of things.

I think Reynard provided a helpful response for you, but it's probably not bad to analyze this a little further. I find it helpful to remember the following:

• Your game is your own. No one is coming for your game books to replace them with things you do not like. Whatever way you played in that time referenced in your first sentence is still readily doable.
• People on the internet espousing positions are doing exactly that and nothing else. They are not an enforcement body, and them positing a position you or I do not like are not you or I being picked on, forced to do anything, etc.
• In discussions like these, people have a natural tendency to leave off a 'It is my position or opinion that...' at the beginning of declarative statements. Treating the statements of others (not specifically stated to be such) as declarations of the only allowable position/action is a recipe to be miserable.
• They also tend not to always put in all the context into a single thread of what they think is an ongoing conversation. Thus statements like "I think people should _______" often mean "I think people generally should _____" with an belief that the actual limits, edge cases, qualifiers, and such tied to that will be sussed out as the discussion unfolds.
• Dueling definitions and splitting hairs only matter when they help to draw a distinction. "I'm right because the dictionary definition of <term we are throwing about> is defined as _____" is a great way not to convince others, especially if the term isn't actually the subject of discussion (ex. upthread discussion of theft vs. robbery, when discussion was actually about playing 'protagonists who would be the villains in a different genre').
• None of what we do here matters excepting our reactions to it, and our ability to convince others present the change their mind about something.

More specifically to the games being discussed, it's probably useful to remember:

• Most games generally want you to be able to play them with multiple framings and in multiple play patterns
• Few if any of them have been wholly consistent on a matter, even within a single printing/edition/version.
• A given statement in a ruleset may well declare a game to have a specific goal/character/be 'about' one thing, but there can easily be another statement elsewhere in the ruleset saying something different. These do not negate each other, nor necessarily have to be contradictory (a game can be multiple things). *Old School D&D absolutely was about crawling into holes in the ground and smashing bad guy monsterfolk; but it also was (from pretty much day one) about negotiating with them instead, moral conundrums, and making hard choices (honestly, the hard choices part seems to be the central focus the designers kept coming back to).
• Regardless of what the game books say, people have gone and taken the rulesets to go make their own curated playstyle since the beginning. Thus, if you're trying to answer anything more specific than 'what did the rulebook actually say?,' the answer is going to be an incredibly nuanced position a lot of subjectivity and without solid answers.

Pirates are bad guys unless they have a Disney logo on them; but don't get your Disney on my D&D.

The equivocation and pedantry...every one always sounds angry, but doesnt mean to sound angry and so on and so on. When in the end we all know its 4e's fault and WOTC is bad because because they make stuff and we buy it, and then they run their business like a business and we all lose our minds because......Well that's just great...I forgot what my point was.

By all accounts, a hodgepodge of the go-to arguments on these boards. Yes, there's a lot of really passionate (oftentimes at least semi-hostile) discussion regarding the greatest hits (4e, WotC as a business/shepherd of the D&D brand, Disney itself for some reason or just the generalized 'don't get your ______ on my D&D' line. It would be great if there was a greater ratio of new and productive topics and arguments rather than perpetual axe-grinding, but that's hard to do with an opt-in discussion scenario (people are passionate about their preferred axe to grind).

 

[KYRON45]

I think Reynard provided a helpful response for you, but it's probably not bad to analyze this a little further. I find it helpful to remember the following:

• Your game is your own. No one is coming for your game books to replace them with things you do not like. Whatever way you played in that time referenced in your first sentence is still readily doable.
• People on the internet espousing positions are doing exactly that and nothing else. They are not an enforcement body, and them positing a position you or I do not like are not you or I being picked on, forced to do anything, etc.
• In discussions like these, people have a natural tendency to leave off a 'It is my position or opinion that...' at the beginning of declarative statements. Treating the statements of others (not specifically stated to be such) as declarations of the only allowable position/action is a recipe to be miserable.
• They also tend not to always put in all the context into a single thread of what they think is an ongoing conversation. Thus statements like "I think people should _______" often mean "I think people generally should _____" with an belief that the actual limits, edge cases, qualifiers, and such tied to that will be sussed out as the discussion unfolds.
• Dueling definitions and splitting hairs only matter when they help to draw a distinction. "I'm right because the dictionary definition of <term we are throwing about> is defined as _____" is a great way not to convince others, especially if the term isn't actually the subject of discussion (ex. upthread discussion of theft vs. robbery, when discussion was actually about playing 'protagonists who would be the villains in a different genre').
• None of what we do here matters excepting our reactions to it, and our ability to convince others present the change their mind about something.

More specifically to the games being discussed, it's probably useful to remember:

• Most games generally want you to be able to play them with multiple framings and in multiple play patterns
• Few if any of them have been wholly consistent on a matter, even within a single printing/edition/version.
• A given statement in a ruleset may well declare a game to have a specific goal/character/be 'about' one thing, but there can easily be another statement elsewhere in the ruleset saying something different. These do not negate each other, nor necessarily have to be contradictory (a game can be multiple things). *Old School D&D absolutely was about crawling into holes in the ground and smashing bad guy monsterfolk; but it also was (from pretty much day one) about negotiating with them instead, moral conundrums, and making hard choices (honestly, the hard choices part seems to be the central focus the designers kept coming back to).
• Regardless of what the game books say, people have gone and taken the rulesets to go make their own curated playstyle since the beginning. Thus, if you're trying to answer anything more specific than 'what did the rulebook actually say?,' the answer is going to be an incredibly nuanced position a lot of subjectivity and without solid answers.

By all accounts, a hodgepodge of the go-to arguments on these boards. Yes, there's a lot of really passionate (oftentimes at least semi-hostile) discussion regarding the greatest hits (4e, WotC as a business/shepherd of the D&D brand, Disney itself for some reason or just the generalized 'don't get your ______ on my D&D' line. It would be great if there was a greater ratio of new and productive topics and arguments rather than perpetual axe-grinding, but that's hard to do with an opt-in discussion scenario (people are passionate about their preferred axe to grind).

I agree with all of this. No caveats, no pedantry...just me agreeing with you.

 

[Reynard]

If someone's business plan is to murder people I generally call them an assassin or a hitman or a murderer.

I generally think of Robin Hood as in a different moral category even though he is a bandit engaged in armed robbery.

I'm not talking about Robin Hood. I'm talking about Sir Frances Drake.

Anyway, my point was that the D&D alignment system is worse than useless.

 

[payn]

I'm not talking about Robin Hood. I'm talking about Sir Frances Drake.

Anyway, my point was that the D&D alignment system is worse than useless.

You haven't made that point yet though. There is nothing about the Frances Drake story that doesn't work within alignment. You can be evil without adhering to all evil things. Some evil folks can produce good outcomes. It doesn't alleviate them of their evil alignment if they continue to choose and apply evil actions. Nor is there anything in the alignment system that says good folks cant interact or work with evil folk. Its contextual and up to an individual.

*Yes, the paladin has a code, but thats based in its class and unique solely to them. Although, there is a clause that allows working with evil if no other option presents itself. Im also willing to admit the pally code was a mistake, and dont blame alignment for it.

 

[Argyle King]

There was a time when you just grabbed your Mountain Dew and some Cheetos and crawled into the hole and smashed monsters and bad guys. Now it seems it's all moral conundrums and your definition of things vs. every one else's definition of things. Pirates are bad guys unless they have a Disney logo on them; but don't get your Disney on my D&D.

The equivocation and pedantry...every one always sounds angry, but doesnt mean to sound angry and so on and so on. When in the end we all know its 4e's fault and WOTC is bad because because they make stuff and we buy it, and then they run their business like a business and we all lose our minds because......Well that's just great...I forgot what my point was.

That can still exist.

I think, for D&D alignment specifically, it kinda still works. Though, D&D is in an odd conflict with itself during which it's using the beoad strokes of Alignment while simultaneously trying to address the inclusivity and diversity of Orcs. Neither is bad/wrong/fun; I think it's just a bit confusing sometimes to try to simultaneously serve both goals.

Even so, it's still entirely valid to play a beer & pretzels (or Dew & Cheetohs as it were) game, in which the heroes kill the "bad guys" and take their stuff -while maybe helping some NPC townsfolk in the process.

D&D is still pretty good at that.
Dungeon Fantasy can do it pretty well.
The Fantasy Trip does it well.

I think, with D&D, "morality" is a bit wonky because it is based upon tangible in-game-world things that give definite definition to good and bad. At the same time, contemporary adventures and "monsters" are being written from a different perspective.

Outside of D&D, a character is less defined by a two-letter alignment and more by alliances, enemies, etc.

In either case, the original post was asking how people in the gaming community handle less-than-good (and perhaps even villainous Player Characters.)

As you're slinging Dew, what would be evil to you? And, if PC "heroes" were swiping your Cheetohs, what would the villains in that same game be like?

 

[Cadence]

Tangentially, some of us were apparently right about Warlocks all along (at least in MtG land).

 

[payn]

That can still exist.

I think, for D&D alignment specifically, it kinda still works. Though, D&D is in an odd conflict with itself during which it's using the beoad strokes of Alignment while simultaneously trying to address the inclusivity and diversity of Orcs. Neither is bad/wrong/fun; I think it's just a bit confusing sometimes to try to simultaneously serve both goals.

Even so, it's still entirely valid to play a beer & pretzels (or Dew & Cheetohs as it were) game, in which the heroes kill the "bad guys" and take their stuff -while maybe helping some NPC townsfolk in the process.

D&D is still pretty good at that.
Dungeon Fantasy can do it pretty well.
The Fantasy Trip does it well.

I think, with D&D, "morality" is a bit wonky because it is based upon tangible in-game-world things that give definite definition to good and bad. At the same time, contemporary adventures and "monsters" are being written from a different perspective.

Outside of D&D, a character is less defined by a two-letter alignment and more by alliances, enemies, etc.

In either case, the original post was asking how people in the gaming community handle less-than-good (and perhaps even villainous Player Characters.)

As you're slinging Dew, what would be evil to you? And, if PC "heroes" were swiping your Cheetohs, what would the villains in that same game be like?

I think folks often look at alignment from a consequentialism lens. Meaning, the results of the actions matter more than the intention. I have always viewed it as opposite of that being that the character's views on society and how you choose to operate inside it are the determinant. Being willing to murder and harm people to get your way for instance makes one evil. Defending yourself or ending up in a war isnt your primary approach so its not good, but not enough to make one evil. Ultimately, being evil only matters when it comes to certain weaponry and spells one is vulnerable to. Folks are free (yes, aside from the pally) to do as they will from there.

To take this back to the OP, folks like to have their cake and eat it too. They like the idea of being free on the seas doing as you please. There is a sort of romantic notion of the age of piracy from stories and folklore. It's a bit more complicated. During the privateering times, you cheered on your nations pirates as resistance fighters and guys out there giving it to your nation's enemies. Of course, the privateers from other nations were monsters and you hated them. As privateering came to closure or low point, many pirates found themselves without a home and job prospects and so they continued doing what they knew how to do. Eventually, it was a bit of class warfare, the pirates were seen by the working folk as poor good old lads giving it to the wealthy fat cats. The ruling class, of course, made them out to be enemies of the state. In between all that is the stories of murder and mayhem, but also deliverance from oppression and such. Bottom line, its an age well passed, that is mroe fun to look on as adventurous rouges, then actual dirty and sad truth of the matter.

So, either you want a gritty realistic depiction in your game with all that entails, or you black and white the situation so nobody has to think about that in their favorite pastime. The question that remains, and is up to individuals, is what the middle of all that looks like?