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

[Rechan]

D&D doesn't need moral ambiguity to be fun. Cosmic Evil is one of the design constraints that allows fun.

Notice that all through that paragraph I said for me. I ain't telling you what you should enjoy. But I don't need to be lectured on how I should be playing or what I should like.

No one has a corner on the market as to what D&D Is.

And this brings me back to another Jasperak alluded to: Most DMs aren't Alan Moore or Joss Whedon, let alone Thomas Aquinas. And the chance that the DM is exploring new ethical ground is pretty slim. That's some well covered ground, if you know what I mean.

This assumes that the DM is playing on one wavelength and the players are on another. If the players are enjoying what the DM is cooking, then it doesn't matter if he's not Alan More or Joss Whedon.

Players that enjoy this sort of thing are more interested in their characters, their backgrounds and motivations, then they are about orcs and XP.

This is also a huge double standard. Moral relativist games suck because no DM can be Moore and Whedon, so they're just kidding themselves. But moral absolutist games rock even though those DMs aren't Tolkien?

What is it about saying "We're right and they're wrong, the end" that makes a game superior to others? And, why are you trying so hard to convince everyone here of that?

 

[Nymrohd]

This isn't so much the problem of Evil in D&D as much as the problem of people not lucky enough to find DMs who can accomodate their taste in gaming . . .

 

[Remathilis]

They don't. People that make deals with the Devils or Cthulhu do not fit in as player characters in heroic fantasy. Thats like saying Conan and Thulsa Doom are sitting in a tavern... and that's a S&S example. Gandalf and Sarumon sitting at a table waiting for their next adventure is just as absurd.

I guess I don't take it that far. Most of the warlocks I've seen are either feylocks or starlocks who don't know exactly what they made a deal with. Else they are reformed baddies looking to make good.

Not very original, but I've only seen 4 of them. They don't seem to be a popular choice in these parts....

 

[Jasperak]

No one has a corner on the market as to what D&D Is..

WOTC defines the brand. As an example I would guess that there are more people playing in Eberron than in Greyhawk and maybe even the Forgotten Realms reboot. That's just a guess though.

Right now it doesn't matter as much, but it may five years from now when Heroic Fantasy makes way for Dark Fantasy or Noir Fantasy. When Greyhawk and the original Forgotten Realms are distant memories.

 

[Rechan]

WOTC defines the brand.

Not the same thing.

What D&D IS means more than just what a corporate office puts out in a new book. D&D is what every person who has ever had the game on their shelf, rolled dice, and pushed a pencil across a character sheet has made it.

No one owns the soul of it. No one owns what you made of it yourself. What it means to you.

Don't believe me? Start a thread, ask "What is D&D?" There will be more opinions than you can shake a stick at, much more than just "What WotC publishes under the name". Start a thread and ask "What would WotC have to do to the D&D brand for it to not be D&D any more?" You'll get a lot of opinions, much more beyond "WotC owns D&D so it's always D&D what WotC does".

 

[Jasperak]

I guess I don't take it that far. Most of the warlocks I've seen are either feylocks or starlocks who don't know exactly what they made a deal with. Else they are reformed baddies looking to make good.

Not very original, but I've only seen 4 of them. They don't seem to be a popular choice in these parts....

Those grey areas are perfectly fine at my table. I consider Devils and Ctulhu pure EVIL, and as such anyone that willingly uses their power is tainted with that EVIL.

Feylocks and starlocks would not cause a problem unless either the DM or player tries to define them differently. I don't know what the rules actually say about starlocks but about the fey I am quite sure I would have no problem.

I think the problem arises when the DM has a different view of the campaign than the player and of course vice-versa.

 

[LostSoul]

And this brings me back to another Jasperak alluded to: Most DMs aren't Alan Moore or Joss Whedon, let alone Thomas Aquinas. And the chance that the DM is exploring new ethical ground is pretty slim. That's some well covered ground, if you know what I mean.

Exploring ethical issues can be very rewarding in RPGs because you're doing it face-to-face with other people, in the moment of play. You might not be breaking new ground, but: finding out how the other people you play with feel about these issues is interesting.

I also find that it's the best way to create story through the medium of an RPG. If the issue being explored is interesting to the players, if their characters take an ethical stance (and therefore, the player is making authorial statements), you will get a story that the players are interested in.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

Evil in my games is defined by that which wishes to prevent the characters from attaining their goals. If their goal is to protect their village, then the Orcs that are attacking it are evil.

I know what you're trying to say, but this phrasing is screwed up.

What if their goals are to wipe out the orcs so that humans can take their lands? Are the orcs who fight back, perhaps even raiding human villages to put the PCs on the defensive, evil?

Now, I know that you mean something like "the PCs in my game are heroes, so anyone who gets in their way is evil because at a minimum they're interfering with the pursuit of something good". Your PCs wouldn't set out to wipe out the orcs of the Red Hills so humans could start mining for copper there, so it doesn't come up - but the way you phrased it, above, really doesn't work, because there are plenty of potential goals for PCs which you don't have to be evil to oppose. It's just that none of them would be the PCs' goals in your game.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

And yet earlier editions still had the "Killin' baby orcs is okay, yes or no?" argument.

On these forums, Gary Gygax once posted his answer to the whole "shouldn't we save the orcs by converting them?" question.

It involved the paladin convincing the orc to convert, "baptising" them, and then executing them immediately so that its soul would remain "saved" and not backslide due to an orc's evil nature.

 

[Jasperak]

Not the same thing.

What D&D IS means more than just what a corporate office puts out in a new book. D&D is what every person who has ever had the game on their shelf, rolled dice, and pushed a pencil across a character sheet has made it.

No one owns the soul of it. No one owns what you made of it yourself. What it means to you.

Don't believe me? Start a thread, ask "What is D&D?" There will be more opinions than you can shake a stick at, much more than just "What WotC publishes under the name". Start a thread and ask "What would WotC have to do to the D&D brand for it to not be D&D any more?" You'll get a lot of opinions, much more beyond "WotC owns D&D so it's always D&D what WotC does".

What D&D means to me and the community at large is my issue. WOTC cannot change what D&D means to me, but it can change the brand into something that encourages a different type of play than I prefer. It will matter when I start running into replacements that have a problem when I say no to them thinking it is ok for Unaligned devil-worshiping warlocks to adventure with Lawful Good paladins. Those kinds of parties may work in other types of games but D&D has always been Heroic to me.

I understand that others play it differently. I don't have a problem until there are no more players left that play like I do.