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

[Nightson]

Yes.

A quick glance at human history makes that unlikely.

 

[frankthedm]

A quick glance at human history makes that unlikely.

Except that D&D is not human history. In D&D, settlers actually are taking back lands from inhuman and subhuman monsters, which for humanity has not happened unless you count it when Cro-Magnons wiped Neanderthals off the face of our planet in pre history.

 

[Jasperak]

So the PCs in your game never fight human opponents?

I fully support "orcs are born to be evil" cosmologies. There's nothing wrong with them. But your argument here seems a trifle irrational. I don't think campaigns in which "we're hunting bandits, but that doesn't mean it's open season on all humans" is a legitimate statement really qualify as some sort of deep, philosophical exploration of the "nature of EVIL".

We generally do not bog down our games with questions about motivations or moral quandaries. We drink wine and happily slaughter orcs. In general the DMs/or I set up the situations with little or no ambiguity; that's what we want out of the game.

Although I have gamed with a few that wanted to play "Moral Dilemmas and Existentialism" for a short time. Those games tended to become more about individual players working through their own issues and bordered on "therapeutic role-playing." Those people would be better served by reading Sartre than playing in games that I enjoy.

I deal with moral choices in the real world everyday. I have to pick sides every day. I do not want to play in a game where I have to question my definition of evil. I don't care if the orcs have any reasons to attack the village. I don't care if the village started the fight. I am a villager. That is the team I play for. Orcs want to destroy my village. I don't want my village destroyed.

 

[S'mon]

I don't care if the orcs have any reasons to attack the village. I don't care if the village started the fight. I am a villager. That is the team I play for. Orcs want to destroy my village. I don't want my village destroyed.

Wow. Well said. My kind of player.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Except that D&D is not human history. In D&D, settlers actually are taking back lands from inhuman and subhuman monsters, which for humanity has not happened unless you count it when Cro-Magnons wiped Neanderthals off the face of our planet in pre history.

Well, that is changing, and has been for a while. What Scott suggests (and what WoW's horde and Eberron's noble goblinoids are) toss in more moral ambiguity into the situation.

Now, moral ambiguity doesn't work excellently in every game (especially something more Tolkeinish), but like Scott, I find it an interesting thing to play with. Orcs are not monsters in most of my games -- they are just different creatures, different cultures.

Part of the reason I go this route is because I'm eager to reject the implicit racism of myth and legend that say that anything different and foreign isn't basically human. It's a modernism that I'm eager to embrace in most of my games (but, it must be said, not all).

 

[Jasperak]

Well, that is changing, and has been for a while. What Scott suggests (and what WoW's horde and Eberron's noble goblinoids are) toss in more moral ambiguity into the situation.

Now, moral ambiguity doesn't work excellently in every game (especially something more Tolkeinish), but like Scott, I find it an interesting thing to play with. Orcs are not monsters in most of my games -- they are just different creatures, different cultures.

Part of the reason I go this route is because I'm eager to reject the implicit racism of myth and legend that say that anything different and foreign isn't basically human. It's a modernism that I'm eager to embrace in most of my games (but, it must be said, not all).

So you would enjoy playing in a game that modeled the Israeli-Palastinian Conflict?

Sorry, I play games to escape reality, not model it badly.

 

[Imaro]

Sorry, I don't see how this...

Although I have gamed with a few that wanted to play "Moral Dilemmas and Existentialism" for a short time. Those games tended to become more about individual players working through their own issues and bordered on "therapeutic role-playing." Those people would be better served by reading Sartre than playing in games that I enjoy.

and this...

So you would enjoy playing in a game that modeled the Israeli-Palastinian Conflict?

Sorry, I play games to escape reality, not model it badly.

are really all that different, IMO just different types of "therapy". Honestly I love the elitism of if you want to explore anything more than... me...BASH!...Orc you're trying to have a therapy session...

IMO it's akin to conversation...sometimes I wanna talk sports, other times I want to talk about the state of {fill in a particular race} in America. Both conversations can be interesting and entertaining but as long as they are I don't consider one subject "better" than the other. I am just glad to be multi-faceted enough that sports isn't the only subject of conversation I can appreciate. YMMV of course.

 

[Jasperak]

Sorry, I don't see how this...

[My Quote]

and this...

[Another Quote from me]

are really all that different, IMO just different types of "therapy". Honestly I love the elitism of if you want to explore anything more than... me...BASH!...Orc you're trying to have a therapy session...

Unless you consider Monopoly and Chess "therapy" your point is absurd.

 

[S'mon]

I played in a long term play by mail WW2 game where I played a Wehrmacht soldier; it was in the style of Sven Hassel. I did enjoy the moral ambivalence of playing a patriot fighting for my country, when my country was led by an evil regime.

 

[frankthedm]

When someone presents their opinion that a given monster is somehow supposed to represent a human civilization as a fact, it seriously hurts the chance of a good conversation.