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

[Rechan]

And yet I'm not going to say someone would always be "wrong" for choosing to perform a callous, selfish act that causes suffering. The world is a rough place. Likewise, is it always "right" to follow the dictates of alignment? What if Bahamut appeared in front of a paladin and informed him that so-and-so was completely evil and should be smote, but the paladin recoiled at the idea of assassinating someone and possibly causing a chain of events that led to the suffering of other people besides the named villain? What if a Good deity declared that the world would be better off without orcs? I mean, it might be true, and if you are a Good deity, you might be bound to act on that knowledge.

This brings up an issue I've been wanting to play with in a setting for a while. I never see this handled in campaign settings, but:

Instead of having a pantheon of Gods, and each God has its own alignment, and the followers of that God stick to roughly that alignment and worship that god one way...

Let's take the God of The Sun and Fire. This God doesn't have a spelled out alignment. The Church of the God has different Sects. You have a Good sect, that follows the tenants of Purification and Renewal; the light of the sun burning away the darkness, fire giving warmth to man and cooking his food, growing crops and providing light to see. You have the Neutral Sect, which is about Rebirth and Passion; a fire burns a forest so that old trees die and new ones can grow, fire and the sun has no true purpose, it burns anyone it touches so it is not a source of goodness, but one of change. Then you have the Evil sect, that sees Fire's raw destruction, and how it empowers certain evil creatures (like red dragons and hellhounds and suchlike).

That can even happen in a world with divine magic, where the gods exist: Because the mind and agenda of a god is too hard for a mortal to fathom. Different prophecies and edicts have come down that are vague enough to be interpreted one way or the other. Actions of prophets and Avatars have contradicted one another, either to suit the situation, or some Cause that wasn't clear at the time. He could be all of them and none of them. Why should a God give you all the answers? Have Faith in him and figure it out for yourself.

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.

This way, you don't have "This is the Good god, this is the Evil god, and they fight." It's "This is a God. His worship and portfolio can be used for both good and evil."

 

[frankthedm]

Yes, never in human history have people waged wars of territorial expansion against those they consider subhuman.

Humans will often consider opposed groups humans to be subhuman. But in fantasy world, some entities that are viewed to be subhuman, really are subhuman and make the world a worse place by existing.

Theoretically I'd also let them go around murdering babies if they really wanted to, but they always like playing the good guys.

A swift blow of the sword is more merciful than starvation IMHO

 

[Spatula]

I can see how what I have said may be taken that way, but it is not necessarily my intention.

And yet your every post in this thread has been pure condescension, accusing anyone who likes different styles of GAMES than you of NEEDING therapy. Oh, and plenty of unnecessary CAPITALS, too. Apparently because you had one bad experience with some DM. We've all had experiences with stupid DMs on power trips, so what's the big deal? Seems to me like you're using this THREAD to work out your ISSUES with that period of your LIFE.

Of course you also entered into the discussion with a declaration of skirting as close to moderator action as you could without getting banned. So when you say you were not "necessarily" intending to be insulting, forgive me if I don't buy it.

 

[Jasperak]

If I ran a game, I wouldn't want players spending three hours talking about this stuff either. I want them to have fun, get loot, and rack up the XP.

I would like to weave the moral relativism into the story I told with the adventure taking turns and shifts jumping around in those shades of grey. My hope would be that like any good story the players would be engaged in the play at the table and have the "ah-ha" moments of pondering and reflection of the big picture in between games. Sort of like how watching a good movie captures something in your brain and you can't get rid of it for hours afterwards.

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.

 

[Jasperak]

And yet your every post in this thread has been pure condescension, accusing anyone who likes different styles of GAMES than you of NEEDING therapy.

Where did I say that?

 

[Nightson]

Jasperak, it's nice that you don't like anything other the heroic fantasy in your DnD, that's great, power to you. But kindly stop insulting every single person who might like something even slightly different in every single post you're making in this thread.

 

[Jasperak]

I like the new Battlestar Gallactica more than the old one.

I would enjoy a game where the PC's had to choose sides between two forces that both had a strong case for why they are right.

To me, this is more enjoyable, usually, than basic hack-and-slay gameplay because it gets to the heart of playing a character, a role: divining their motives, their personality, what they hold dear and what they are willing to discard, what is an axiom for them, and what they might let slide.

That is where we are fundamentally different. I haven't watched much of the new Battlestar Galactica, but I do know I like the original alot. If I had to pick one i would choose the original. I like black and white sides.

I prefer the original Star Trek series to all of the newer ones. I also prefer the original klingons to the newer ones. The newer ones may be more dynamic and have greater characterization, but Star Trek isn't about the klingons. Its about Kirk, Spock, and crew of the Enterprise. The question with the klingons is always: how to keep them from taking our stuff without resorting to their tactics. Those are the dramatic situations I like to see characters work through.

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.

 

[S'mon]

My orcs are both spawn of the dark god and posssessed of free will - they have an evil culure, they usually tend towards evil, but they are not automata. In terms of the greater good, killing baby orcs is a greater good than letting them grow up to attack human or elf settlements, but raising them to be good would be a much greater good still.

IMC humans, elves, dwarves are created by the good god, but are corruptible, and many have been corrupted. Halflings are highly corruption resistent as in Tolkien. Orcs, goblins etc are created by the evil god, but just as the good races are corruptible, the evil races are redeemable. Indeed recently IMC a PC priest of the Unconquered Sun (the good deity) preached to and converted some goblins, at least temporarily, before setting them free. Gygax would say he should have converted them then killed them to prevent backsliding, but that doesn't sit well with me.

 

[S'mon]

That is where we are fundamentally different. I haven't watched much of the new Battlestar Galactica, but I do know I like the original alot. If I had to pick one i would choose the original. I like black and white sides.

I prefer the original Star Trek series to all of the newer ones. I also prefer the original klingons to the newer ones. The newer ones may be more dynamic and have greater characterization, but Star Trek isn't about the klingons. Its about Kirk, Spock, and crew of the Enterprise. The question with the klingons is always: how to keep them from taking our stuff without resorting to their tactics. Those are the dramatic situations I like to see characters work through.

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.

Yeah, I agree. The new Galactica was better when it focused primarily on adventure, without too much of the moral relativism (which makes no sense in context anyway, after one side has unprovokedly genocided 99.99% of the others' population). And Kirk is much cooler than Picard.

 

[Jasperak]

Guys, I am really sorry that I am coming across as an arrogant prick.

I went back and read the thread again. I do not mean to insult anyone that plays a different way than me. I have even said I would enjoy some of the situations/campaigns that you have played in. I am just bitter that I have had some really crappy DMs and they seem to have one thing in common. They tried to create something they didn't have to ability to express. Some wanted to examine morally relativist situations when other players and I did not. One poster nailed it earlier when he said if you have two opposing styles of play there will be friction.

Again I'm sorry for coming across like a dick.