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

[Jasperak]

Here's the thing. You might have encountered DMs who obviously love their little world. And let's face it, many people play D&D to get through their issues (or exercise them). I'm sure you have met a DM or two who has serious control issues, who wants you to march to their tune OR ELSE.

Meanwhile, this style of play also is for Players who want to explore how their character feels. And want to have some drama where the characters' morals conflict. To them, the GAME isn't "What level my character is and what I've killed" but "Who my character is and what he does". It's a game of pretending to be another different complex person.

D&D is played by many different types of people. I've met players who have wanted to play pacifist characters; when combat happens, the character hides. When combat is over, they come out and play their character. And they have fun doing it.

Some like to play Nation-Building games. An example of that is my campaign; the PCs are running a colony on a jungle continent, and so wiping out all the natives isn't useful to them. Those natives are resources to be used, allies for other battles, sources of information, etc. And if a group of natives are "Evil", it doesn't matter to the PCs as long as the Evil Natives aren't being a problem. Some of the game is simply politics of trading favors and deals, to build up the colony. And the players love being able to draw up their own maps of the colony and make its laws, and I love the supernatural politics. And the PCs don't want to shoot from the hip, because it might destabelize their relationship with their other allies.

I agree with everything you said. I would probably enjoy your nation-building campaign.

This question about moral relativism though is a matter of degrees. Characters not being sure of who is good and evil is fine and healthy for role-playing, but there are certain sacred cows that in my opinion must be maintained. Orcs are evil. Changing default assumptions about evil in the game in the manner Scott questions would only add complexity where IMHO it doesn't really belong.

Moral ambiguity can work in D&D, I've seen it though it works for some games more than others. Paranoia comes to mind. I have always had the most fun with D&D when it was a simple diversion from life. Moral questions were black and white when I started playing in the mid 80's, though the way we played shifted slowly towards dealing with more difficult questions. I stopped having fun when I realized some of the people I played with were clueless and couldn't put 2+2 together about the meaning of life. D&D became fun again when we started playing it as a GAME instead of as a proxy for the real world.

I understand what you are saying about character feelings though. There was a time that I did enjoy play like that, but eventually i found that the majority of the character remained inside my head. It was around then that I realized I would be better off writing those stories instead of trying to act in character. I don't know if I am a better writer than roleplayer, but I do get more enjoyment from expressing and developing a character through writing than acting.

I have seen enough people try to work through their issues playing D&D that I don't think it needs to be actively encouraged by Scott and the design team, and that's what I think would be more likely to happen if his vision of evil was the default assumption.

 

[Rechan]

Haffrung Helleyes[/url]]What I disagree with strongly with, however , is the idea that moral relativism should exist in the basic 'Default Campaign' assumed by WoTC publications. I don't want to see misunderstood kobolds or reformist orcs.

I agree with everything you said. I would probably enjoy your nation-building campaign.

This question about moral relativism though is a matter of degrees. Characters not being sure of who is good and evil is fine and healthy for role-playing, but there are certain sacred cows that in my opinion must be maintained. Orcs are evil. Changing default assumptions about evil in the game in the manner Scott questions would only add complexity where IMHO it doesn't really belong.

I don't think Scott was suggesting that it would make its way into WotC publishing. I honestly think he was just starting a discussion in the "What IF" line of thinking.

Besides. WotC all ready has a game world with moral ambiguity: Eberron. Moral ambiguity is everywhere because the setting is inspired in part by Film Noir. And the setting intentionally monkeys with Default Assumptions: in Eberron, orcs are the nature-protecting druidic force that saved the world from Madness-Incarnate planar invading armies. Goblins and Hobgoblins are the remnants of a Roman-style empire, with lots of delusions of granduer and a system of Honor (albeit a bit corrupted).

Not to mention other published settings that play with assumptions. Scarred Lands had a city of Good Necromancers, where necromancy was used for medicinal purposes and to discover the secrets of the body (much like science is today).

And, the DM playing with default assumptions for his campaign is a time honored traditions when it comes to making homebrews. I've heard of games where Elves are plants, dragons aren't color coded, and halflings are cannibals.

Part of the incentive of Changing Default Assumptions = having those assumptions too long gets stale. If you've been fighting the same orcs for the same reasons for 15 years, a little change goes a long way. You might find it a comfort of consistency, I find it boring because I've been there and done that. I, for one, am so sick and tired of Tolkien I want to run a game with no elves, dwarves or halflings, where humanity is either just starting out, or waning and outnumbered (like Babylon 5).

 

[Nightson]

In D&D, settlers actually are taking back lands from inhuman and subhuman monsters

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

When I'm DMing I do give my players a world with shades of gray and I have NPCs react in the manner in which they would based on their personality and their moral views.

I don't contrive things to make the PCs heroes, cosmic evil doesn't lurk around every corner, good doesn't always win in the end, it's easy to be a hero when that's the case, it means a lot more to be a hero when people are human and when the universe doesn't seem to care what happens. And that's why I run my games that way. Theoretically I'd also let them go around murdering babies if they really wanted to, but they always like playing the good guys.

 

[Silverblade The Ench]

Speak for yourself, mate.

As for normal societies not desiring war; no, people often clamour for war. In primitive societies warfare is usually endemic. Nation-states get war fever. People like war, as long as they're winning.

Is the kid throwing snowballs at yer window "evil" ?
Big variance in folk, very very few folk are truly evil, lot more though, are messed in the head or do stupid things when circumstances are bad, that leads to terrible results
The deeds they may do are "evil", but they are not "evil" themselves. Doesn't mean I like WTH they have done, just I know it's not so simple from knowing them or knowing the full circumstances. Really evil scuzzballs though, you can weld in a jail cell far as I'm concerned! )



Folk don't usually clamour for war. They clamour for war when they percieve a threat, which is often a bogus one made up by some git of a politician out for gain (that's not a "current issue" point, it's a general and damn factual one).
Most folk just want to get on with thier lives, and enjoy a grumble about something, but not wanting an actual war.

But people who are fearful are eager to stirke out, because of that fear, as thwy wish to avoid harm, hence they can be easily manipulated. People who are driven by fear, don't think very rationally and lash out.

 

[Jasperak]

Besides. WotC all ready has a game world with moral ambiguity: Eberron. Moral ambiguity is everywhere because the setting is inspired in part by Film Noir. And the setting intentionally monkeys with Default Assumptions: in Eberron, orcs are the nature-protecting druidic force that saved the world from Madness-Incarnate planar invading armies. Goblins and Hobgoblins are the remnants of a Roman-style empire, with lots of delusions of granduer and a system of Honor (albeit a bit corrupted).

That may be why I don't like what I have heard about Eberron.

Part of the incentive of Changing Default Assumptions = having those assumptions too long gets stale. If you've been fighting the same orcs for the same reasons for 15 years, a little change goes a long way. You might find it a comfort of consistency, I find it boring because I've been there and done that. I, for one, am so sick and tired of Tolkien I want to run a game with no elves, dwarves or halflings, where humanity is either just starting out, or waning and outnumbered (like Babylon 5).

That is why I bought the Warhammer Fantasy Roleplaying Game. Similar style game to what I prefer although it has different assumptions about the nature of magic and other things. Evil is EVIL though. I don't think you can play in Warhammer and not kill baby orcs given the chance.

(Psst, skaven do exist.)

 

[Nymrohd]

D&D is not a game you play alone. The biggest part of the D&D experience is not the game and its mechanics or assumptions but rather the personalities of the people in your table and the way the DM handles his campaigns. If someone likes black and white morality while another person likes moral dilemmas a game or DM that enforces either type of play will inevitably frustrate one of the players and likely delight the other. A gaming group with heavily conflicting tastes is not going to work unless people are very passive about their preferences or the DM has godlike skills. Trying to allocate blame to the game for the inevitability of interpersonal conflict is irrational.

 

[Rechan]

That is why I bought the Warhammer Fantasy Roleplaying Game.

Although that the assumption of WHFRPG is that you aren't heroes. The point of the game is to suffer. As it's been said by many people here on these boards, if you're not worse off at the end of the adventure than you were at the beginning, you're not playing WHFRPG.

(Psst, skaven do exist.)

I love skaven. Or at least, the Scarred Lands version, Slitheren. Nasty, nasty rat bastards.

 

[Hussar]

There are lots of systems out there that explore moral relativism.

D&D has always been, at its heart, a game of heroic fantasy. One of the big, basic tenets of heroic fantasy is that the bad guys are unredeemably evil. Good might not be lily white and perfect (look at Tolkien for example) but evil is just evil and needs killing. Conan lends itself to this as well. There is nothing redeemable about Thoth Amon. He's evil and he needs killing.

Going more modern, you have movies like Indiana Jones and all the pulps - again, irredeemable evil in need of killing/defeating. Nazis make perfect characatures for this. Green Martians have no redeeming qualities - they love torture and only laugh at other's pain. Example after example can be found in the genre.

So, when I play D&D, I want to buckly my swash. I don't want to worry about morally grey issues. I certainly wouldn't want that to be the default in D&D. Not that you can't do it in D&D, but, I'd rather it not be the base standard. To be honest, D&D revolves too much around killing things for moral relativism. You would be absolutely paralyzed if you had to work out actual motives for killing all the things you've likely killed by the end of a D&D campaign.

 

[Remathilis]

That may be why I don't like what I have heard about Eberron.

Eberron is a refreshing twist if you've grown bored with CE red dragons and spider-worshipping drow. I love Eberron, but every once and a while I want to go back to no-qualms EVIL orcs that slaughter the countryside without remorse.

Yea I get to do both!

 

[Rechan]

I love Eberron, but every once and a while I want to go back to no-qualms EVIL orcs that slaughter the countryside without remorse.

To be fair, Eberron also has the irredeemable evil types you don't have to worry when you put them to the sword. The Emerald Claw is to Eberron what the Nazis are to Indiana Jones. If the Quori, Daelkyr or Lords of Dust are involved, there's no question of their evil. The Aurum literally are Bond Villains.