Book of Vile Darkness: A Morality Play?

[LurkAway]

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "Should players internalize the consequences of evil PC actions, or is it just a non-immersive game where anything goes?"- I'm not out to teach any life lessons, I'm out to run a game where the players lead the action. If their evil actions have consequences, so be it. Their good actions will too. But that doesn't mean that the game is non-immersive- this isn't a binary at all.

I mean if a player is roleplaying an evil character that causes, say, severe pain and misery in-game, is that something you (not you specifically, but y'all) would shrug off or laugh off (ha, that stupid farmer, I stuck it to him good!) because it's just a game, or would you feel bad so you roleplay a "pretend Evil" character that causes pain and misery only to other Evil creatures so you don't have to think about the kidnapping, extortion, rape, murder or other torture p*rn your character would probably do to innocents on his/her time off?

Remember back when drow was in the DMG, because it was an Evil Race to be handled with caution and subject to DM approval as a player option? Fast forward and the latest offerings from 4E have gotten quite dark.

For example, some excerpts from here:
Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Your Gritty Antihero and You)

That actually sounds pretty cool (thus the allure of the antihero) but remember, that patron is still eating soul shards. Soul-devouring is an attribute that’s hard to gloss over...

saying you’re an assassin means you admit to killing people. (Essentials assassin: executioner dodges this because it sounds like it’s a state-appointed position. You know, like parking lot attendant or maker-of-the-keys.)

Shadowthief... Do you feed your endless hunger for shadows by killing your victims so they don’t become like you? Or does the paladin put you out of your misery?

Thrallherd... All of the previous horrors simply involve murder or oblivion for the victim. In this case, they’re very much alive being tortured regularly as the psion’s flesh puppet. Oh my. That’s…. a hard sell, even in vaguely shady groups. It’s so hardcore that it almost trumps the necromancer (at least necromancers only play with bones and dead meat). Do you think the thrallherd’s victim cries slow tears during short rests?

vampire class... As much as Heroes of Shadow suggests that you embrace your dark and vile blood-drinking ways (which are admittedly awesome), you might want to tone it down if you’re going to play well with others.

So it seems to me that in order to offer cool anti-heroes in D&D, it feels like there's a certain amount of glossing over of very questionable morals, instead of fully acknowledging (as Jared von Hindman has refreshingly and cheekily exposed) the rotten evil nature of certain roleplaying choices and what it means in-game -- whether it's ethical choices that come up unexpectedly in the course of gameplay or the purposeful choosing of one of the darker character options in Heroes of Shadow and Book of Vile Darkness.

 

[Soramain]

So it seems to me that in order to offer cool anti-heroes in D&D, it feels like there's a certain amount of glossing over of very questionable morals, instead of fully acknowledging (as Jared von Hindman has refreshingly and cheekily exposed) the rotten evil nature of certain roleplaying choices and what it means in-game -- whether it's ethical choices that come up unexpectedly in the course of gameplay or the purposeful choosing of one of the darker character options in Heroes of Shadow and Book of Vile Darkness.

Careful, that kind of glossing is likely to end in tears and/or sparkly vampires.

 

[jedavis]

A theme in a game I played in over the summer was "You reap what you sow." We killed the half-dragon bandits on the road, rather than trying to parlay. Then their (high-level) human cleric mother came for us. Then the ghosts of the bandits came for us... (we killed their draconic father in the interim, or else I expect he'd've come after us too). So when later in the campaign, we had an enemy more-or-less by the throat and they offered surrender, we took them up on it right quick (I wasn't in favor, actually... illusionists are tricky creatures, and untrustworthy. But it worked out well anyways).

Give positive actions positive consequences and negative actions negative consequences, unless there is a compelling reason to make things otherwise, preferably one known to the PCs. Letting an enemy known for betrayal live is probably a bad plan. If you've established that orcs are sly, treacherous creatures and not to be trusted under any circumstances, then freeing them might reasonably have negative in-world consequences. If, on the other hand, orcs fill the "noble savage" archetype in your world, then you might expect Chewbacca-style life-debts or later boons for freeing them. Do what makes sense within the gameworld, and reward players who pay attention to the nature of things in that world.

Better yet, have a mixed outcome. If they free the prisoners, maybe most of the orcs go back to their pillaging ways eventually, and the PCs have to deal with them, but one 'sees the light', so to speak, and becomes a recurring allied NPC (or henchman, squire, &c). That's how things tend to turn out in real life; morally interesting actions have mixed consequences, rather than being purely good or purely bad in their outcomes.

 

[Rechan]

Remember back when drow was in the DMG, because it was an Evil Race to be handled with caution and subject to DM approval as a player option? Fast forward and the latest offerings from 4E have gotten quite dark.

And in those days people wanted to play Drow because they wanted to be Drizzt. I.e. the lone good guy of an otherwise evil race. Now I think most people play drow for the stats.

So it seems to me that in order to offer cool anti-heroes in D&D, it feels like there's a certain amount of glossing over of very questionable morals, instead of fully acknowledging (as Jared von Hindman has refreshingly and cheekily exposed) the rotten evil nature of certain roleplaying choices and what it means in-game -- whether it's ethical choices that come up unexpectedly in the course of gameplay or the purposeful choosing of one of the darker character options in Heroes of Shadow and Book of Vile Darkness.

I would at least disagree with one of those.

I don't think anyone is glossing over THE ASSASSIN. Most popular culture relating to the Assassin glorifies that character even as he murders others for hire. Assassins are the main characters, the heroes, of movies like "The Professional" "The Mechanic" "Columbiana" "Wanted" "The Big Hit" "Lucky Number Sleven" "The Whole Nine Yards" "Mr. and Mrs. Smith" "Grosse Point Blank" "Smoking Aces" "Hero" "Hitman" "Pulp Fiction" "The Bourne Trilogy" and others I'm missing. Not to mention the video games "Assassin's Creed (up to 4 now)" and I'm not sure how many Hitman games there are. Not to mention an untold number of novels. Just like how mafia guys get glorified even as they murder each other, often in cold blood. No one is glossing there. I mean hell, the show "Dexter" is about a serial killer, the hero of the series, who graphically murders other killers and that show is up to season 5!

Thing is, while their class may say assassin, they are rarely propositioned in-game to engage in murder for hire. That presents several problems for DMs (only one of which is the moral issues involved in killing for hire).

And just because one has the class name Assassin does it necessarily mean that they are killing for hire. I just started a game where my character, an assassin, is about hunting down and murdering (or bringing to justice, but often murdering) horrible criminals - slavers, murderers, rapists, etc. The character is styled more to the Punisher or Dexter than a hitman.

 

[the Jester]

I mean if a player is roleplaying an evil character that causes, say, severe pain and misery in-game, is that something you (not you specifically, but y'all) would shrug off or laugh off (ha, that stupid farmer, I stuck it to him good!) because it's just a game, or would you feel bad so you roleplay a "pretend Evil" character that causes pain and misery only to other Evil creatures so you don't have to think about the kidnapping, extortion, rape, murder or other torture p*rn your character would probably do to innocents on his/her time off?

First off, it sounds like you have a pretty simplistic view of evil here. Not all evil creatures kidnap, extort, rape or murder any more than all good creatures run around healing strangers and sacrificing themselves for heroic lost causes.

I've never had a player fell bad for roleplaying an evil pc as far as I know; I've seen evil pcs that run the gamut from "dour butthole" to "psychopathic mass murdering cannibal". It is just a game. Do you feel bad when you shoot some innocent bystander while playing Grand Theft Auto, or when you play MacBeth in your high school play, or when you write the villain's part in a story you're working on?

Put another way, if a player should feel bad for playing an evil pc, shouldn't the dm then feel bad all the time when dming?

 

[Soramain]

First off, it sounds like you have a pretty simplistic view of evil here. Not all evil creatures kidnap, extort, rape or murder...

I'd go further and say that most evil creatures or characters don't do these things. Psycho- and sociopaths are the exception even among evil characters, not the rule. It's far more likely that an evil alignment results from extreme selfishness or an ends-justifies-the-means mindset. Such characters might kidnap, extort, or murder in pursuit of an end, but they will be able to justify in their own minds why those acts are necessary, and they won't do them indiscriminately.

 

[Corathon]

As other have said, the situation described is only a moral dilemma if the creatures in question are not inherently and irredeemably evil. If they are, the correct answer is to kill them all, since they will inevitably do only evil.

If orcs and the like are not inherently and irredeemably evil there is still a middle ground between "slaughter the orc & goblin slaves and young giantess" and "walk away". The group could turn the prisoners over to the local authorities. They could also escort them to the edge of their own tribal lands with a warning not to return.

 

[Rechan]

See what you do is you get all of them, march them to the nearest humanoid tribe, and trade them as slaves to the humanoids for profit.

See, everyone wins!

 

[Celebrim]

In your good campaign, is it fair to put the players in this kind of dilemma?

Yes. And if you don't, that in my opinion is when you are in the risk of running an evil campaign. IMO, exploration of a world in which there are no moral consquences is more likely to lead to deviant behavior by the players (in proxy) than one which has serious adult themes.

Should modern sensibilities and modern ethics (Geneva convention, etc.) be applied to a world of chaos, danger, and innately evil creatures?

That's really up to the players. Frankly, I consider this world to be one of chaos, danger, and innately evil creatures (namely, humans). So the question becomes, to what extent is something like the standards of the Geneva Convention, the Uniform Code of Military Conduct, or the Laws of Land Warfare an absolute moral standard? And if you consider an absolute standard, are you willing to accept the consequences of that?

In your evil campaign, would Evil be Easy & Cool...

No.

...or would it be a reverse exploration of good and evil?

Yes.

I don't believe that there are many moral considerations that are unique to RPGs, but I do believe that this is one of them. I don't believe that there are many things that are 'badwrongfun'. But, I honestly believe that running the game in such a way that it celebrates violence, sexual violence, murder, theft, greed, and so forth as consequence free, easy, completely rewarding choices, is immoral badwrong fun. (I don't intend to debate that point, so if that stance outrages you, I probably won't respond to your venting so consider that before doing so.)

I won't get in the face of a player that chooses to play in that way (intentionally or without thought), nor will I metagame against him, but I believe that a game should have natural consequences to actions. If there is a conflict between a village of humans and a neighboring tribe of non-humans, you can bet that I'm not going to sugarcoat the acts that tribal warfare involves. Tribal warfare is almost inherently genocidal in nature, and if you take it up as a cause, don't be surprised if you are drawn into that. I don't believe and firmly reject that everything is a shade of gray, but just because I reject that doesn't mean that I believes its always easy to see your way amongst the moral morass of an injust world.

I don't think anyone is glossing over THE ASSASSIN. Most popular culture relating to the Assassin glorifies that character even as he murders others for hire.

As related to the above, I found it pretty much impossible to finish Assassin's Creed II (my first introduction to the series), because after a while I couldn't take the incescent murder that the game rewards you for engaging in and largely pushes you toward. It's not merely that the protagonist is a typical murderer protagonist vaguely justified by the fact that he's been wronged and requires vengence, but I just couldn't take graphicly killing the endless mooks who set upon you at the slightest notice or the game play which rewards you with less tedium if you just kill anyone who gets in your way. I started feeling really dirty after a while, and so far as I could tell, this wasn't an issue that the developers were actively trying to make you dwell on. At some point, I lost track of whether the protagonist was really any better than the murderous thugs he was killing, lost empathy with the story line, and developed an aversion to the game play. I guess to that extent, I could say it was morally successful, but I'm not sure my experience is typical.

Suffice to say that if I was running an RPG and the PC was murdering scores or hundreds of innocent soldiers, beat cops, and rent-a-cops (I hate the phrase, "innocent civilians" when its used to imply soldiers are not), that those actions wouldn't be forgiven by the larger society just because you ripped down a few wanted posters. This is true regardless of whether the PC wants to explore the world from the perspective of evil or good. Evil and good in my game aren't merely hats the two teams wear to identify who they can murder freely and take their stuff.

 

[Celebrim]

Put another way, if a player should feel bad for playing an evil pc, shouldn't the dm then feel bad all the time when dming?

I'm not sure that the two are really comparable.

As a DM, I'm not self-identifying in any way with an NPC. As a PC, I'm almost always self-identifying with the character at least to some extent.

As a DM, my relationship to any particular NPC is transitory and ephemeral. Not only is it unlikely that I'll spend much time bringing any one NPC to life, but I'm likely to bounce around between characterizing NPC's even within the same session. It's hard to form an attachment to an NPC under these circumstances, and its hard to adopt a mode of thinking or behavior on this basis. But when you play a PC, you'll often spend 100's of hours in the character's skull (as it were), thinking like that character so you can figure out what they would do.

I'm not saying that there is something inherently wrong with playing an evil PC, but I do find something bizarre about playing for team evil exclusively or enjoying without reservation characterizing an evil PC. Even the most empathetic, charming, evil character tends to make you feel sick inside after enough time passes if his evil is anything more than a hat he wears.

In my experience, most people neither play particularly evil nor particularly good characters in the long run. Most players make considerations based on 'winning' the game, a very little else. This tends to produce a sort of casual brutality that most players don't dwell on much, and which doesn't really hit them much because they don't spend much time thinking of the characters in the game as more than game peices to move around. That is to say, you aren't killing orcs, you are 'killing' a miniature, or reducing down a pile of numbers. So conversely, most people playing 'evil' are not engaging the world at a level deeper than that either. It takes quite a bit to shock your average player - especially an experienced one - out of this mode of thought.