Are lessons learned through D&D?

[GuardianLurker]

<humor>
Sigh. Having failed my Will save, I must now reply to one of the oldest debates in the roleplaying culture.
</humor>

Does what you roleplay influence you?
Sure, maybe. Actually, yes, of course, just like any social interaction influences you. Frankly, your non-gaming peers probably have more influence over you (and how you change over time) than any PC or NPC you roleplay.

Yes, actors (especially very good "method" actors) do lose themselves in their roles; sometimes even to the point of forgetting who they are. The extreme forms of this are clinical conditions, but even the less extreme forms can reveal a low level of self-identity. High levels of (strong senses of) self-identity are generally considered to be psychologically healthy.

Back to SJ's original point: IF roleplaying can influence you, do you have a responsibility to choose roles that are a positive influence?

Anecdotal Evidence:
I can't answer for everyone, but I know that my roleplaying experiences HAVE influenced me in the past; not as much as, or as deeply as, almost any other non-gaming experiences, but it is there.

Examples:
My first encounter with this was an adventure I DM'd in college, where I had the PC's encounter a 1E anti-paladin, a truly evil and vile NPC. Writing that adventure revealed something about me I didn't know, didn't really want to know, and that I probably couldn't have encountered any other way. And in wrestling with the revealed (and defeating it), I know I became a better person.

My exposure to Werewolf and Mage increased my awareness of the environmental issues and soceital trends of the modern American soceity, despite never having actually played either (darnit).

As a player of a Paladin in my last Rolemaster campaign, I found I tended to be more peaceful, and more aware of my faith than I had been before. But I had also consciously chosen to explore the role faith played in his life so I could explore mine. It worked, but I've gotten deeper insights from reading CS Lewis.

Contrariwise, my last PC in a 3e campaign was a wizard/rogue who was brash and outspoken. That bled through too, unfortunately.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Interesting discussion so far--I hope my small contribution doesn't ruin it. . . .

I played in a game a year and a half or so ago which started out with the DM saying he didn't care whether we played good or evil--paladins or antipaladins or anything in between.

It was a futuristic cyberpunk/shadowrun style game and started out with just three players. One of the other players and I chose to play morally ambiguous characters (the moral concept of my character was that he was a shallow thinker whose vague, culturally absorbed relativism offered him no real reason to be moral or immoral but who at least had an instinctive sense that he shouldn't murder or rape people) because we knew we were playing a cyberpunk style game and good characters don't work in such a setting. The other player decided to play a psychotic (although it wasn't immediately apparent). It went on for a couple months and the other guy playing a decent character left and a few more players joined. The new characters with forceful personalities were also of the rabid anti-human psychotic bent. When the inevitable "break into the evil corporation" scenario showed up, they started killing indiscriminately--primarily for the fun of it (they could have hidden and the guards would probably have assumed it to be a false alarm).

When that was done, the other players decided to spend the next session role-playing out their wasting of the reward money on ale and whores.

I didn't come back.

That experience taught me several things. First, I don't enjoy playing characters who go along with and accomodate evil. I don't enjoy hanging around with players who are playing evil characters. And I don't enjoy role-playing the ale-and-whores evening.

What's more, I'm glad I don't enjoy that. I'm glad I'm not the kind of person who enjoys that. The reason I can't enjoy such things is because I abhor them. If I could enjoy role-playing such things, it would mean that I, at best was largely indifferent to them. And I ought to be ashamed if I ever become indifferent to evil.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My take on DMing is that the way a DM roleplays evil characters is qualitatively different from the way a player would have to.

A DM has to adopt a much more clinical approach to NPCs than a player does to a PC. 95% of the things the DM does with the kind of NPC that can be really evil in himself (rather than acting as an extension of the main villain's evil like the Storm Troopers in Star Wars) are never role-played out. They consist of things like: "Things are getting a little hot for the Vecnaites at the moment and Cordwellyn only associated with them for the power he could have in an alliance so he won't be at the meeting when the PCs arrive. Knowing that the cult is illegal, he would also have taken care to attend the rituals properly masked. But even his disguise probably betrays its expensive cut and materials. So, if the PCs question the cultists/speak with dead, they'll find out that a tall man with a greatsword was a member of the cult but hasn't attended the rituals for a month. He must be rich because he wore a velvet coat with lace ruffles. . . . No-one ever saw his face, but he did have a short beard."

Even when the villains are on stage, the DM is usually running several people at once so there is the additional level of separation in "villain X says '. . . .'" instead of simply saying ". . . ." Well, it's either that or combat.

Still, for me, the most important difference is that when I DM, I want to see my villains fail. I want to see the PCs unravel their foul plots and punish them properly for their deeds. And that's what usually happens. As a player, I not only have to act out the villainy directly and in first rather than third person, I have to want my character to get away with it and not be brought to justice. And that rankles more than anything else.

 

[Ezrael]

The new characters with forceful personalities were also of the rabid anti-human psychotic bent. When the inevitable "break into the evil corporation" scenario showed up, they started killing indiscriminately--primarily for the fun of it (they could have hidden and the guards would probably have assumed it to be a false alarm).

When that was done, the other players decided to spend the next session role-playing out their wasting of the reward money on ale and whores.

Not to disagree for the sake of disagreeing, but I've lost count of the number of times supposedly good characters did those two things. I think if you make the effort to play an interesting character, good or evil, he wouldn't go on indiscriminate killing sprees when hiding would work just as well. And there's no reason a character should go whoring just because he's evil, or refrain from it merely because he's good (plenty of men who would maintain their 'goodness' have been to a prostitute throughout history) and the same with drinking. I think an obsession with these activities, whether it be in a game or in real life, doesn't necessarily mean that the person in question is evil.

Like I've said before, I've played evil characters. They weren't uncouth or stupid or base, just evil. I don't personally like playing characters that visit prostitutes (I'm not telling anyone else they can't or even maintaining that it's somehow damaging to anyone, it's just not something I want to do) or drink heavily, and whether I play a Paladin or an Assassin, I tend not to play those kinds of people. It has bugger all to do with my character's alignment.

That experience taught me several things. First, I don't enjoy playing characters who go along with and accomodate evil. I don't enjoy hanging around with players who are playing evil characters. And I don't enjoy role-playing the ale-and-whores evening.

What's more, I'm glad I don't enjoy that. I'm glad I'm not the kind of person who enjoys that. The reason I can't enjoy such things is because I abhor them. If I could enjoy role-playing such things, it would mean that I, at best was largely indifferent to them. And I ought to be ashamed if I ever become indifferent to evil.

Well, that's a fair decision for you to make. I don't necessarily think that they're connected: the ale and whores evening doesn't seem especially evil to me. Uncouth, base and boring, yes, but not evil. So far as the slaughter of the guards when stealth would have done, I've seen players do that all the time...sometimes for no other reason than they play a character who isn't very good at stealth or because they play D&D for the the fights. Combat's a big part of the game, after all.

I do think you certainly learned something from the experience, and in of itself that could be seen as worthwhile. I don't agree that realizing you could enjoy role playing those things would mean you were indifferent to evil. I've enjoyed immensely role-playing a character who sought the deaths of dozens of innocent people just because they were descended from an enemy of my clan, and yet I am still quite shocked and horrified by many of the atrocities humanity is capable of. I haven't lost my empathy or my humanity by playing evil, because I know it's a game. I don't live my life the way I play, I never have.

Oh, and unctuous means oily, to answer your question, SemperJase.

 

[ced1106]

By playing good characters you are practicing respect of others which can only benefit society.

Yes. Through playing "good" characters, I have learned to kill other beings, so long as they are not your own race, loot, pillage, and powergame.

Oh, wait. That's the California gubanatorial race. **Never mind**


Cedric.
aka. Washu! ^O^
ps. Riordan in 2002 (if I can spell his name right)

 

[S'mon]

I've learned that Good is the best long-term survival strategy, and Evil the worst. Evil is only a good strategy if you're the one guy on top of the heap, and even then you tend to live in fear of your own underlings. I've learned that evil generally destroys itself, whereas good supports itself. This is why good usually wins eventually (even without any GM fiat!). It's why the future is not, to quote George Orwell, "A boot stamping on the human face forever". Evil perishes. Good can endure.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

S'mon, I hope you are right.

An interesting question is: What comes first. My personal views, doings and believes, or the characters I play?

Everybody chooses characters he wants to play (this does even apply for many actors, I think.), so maybe by playing a certain character, you are just "exploring" a part of yourself.

So, if you play an assassin, you play the part of yourself that could or (maybe would like?) to be like an assassin. If you play a paladin, the part of you "acts" that wants you to be good person.

When I am the DM, I often create NPCs I would like to "test" - be it from a pure mechanical or from an "moral" perspective.

It reminds me also of an incident here in Germany - In a school a former pupil (he had to leave the school because his grades became to bad) shot several pupil and teachters. (It was a shocking incident - Most people believed these things could only happen in America )
This lead to a discussion about computer games like Counterstrike, if games like this lead to young men like him.
I wonder: Does a game really teach you something, or do you choose a game, because it "fits" your personality...
(Just as an example: The only 3-D Action Shooter I liked was the Descent Series, because of its ultimate 3D Experience. I prefer strategical/tactical games, and maybe computer role-playing games... I real life I consider myself as a quite peaceful person, and I never used physical violence as a way "to get my will"..)

Mustrum Ridcully

 

[S'mon]

S'mon, I hope you are right.

Well, I've seen players play LG PCs, and players play CE PCs. It's not like I arbitrarily squelch the CE ones - they typically rise in power faster than the LG ones, and inflict much woe and suffering, and often slaughter lots of good NPC heroes. But in the end they always end up dead, normally because they've pissed off someone on their OWN side. Eg:
"Hey, Graz'zt, now I'm a demigod I'm getting pretty powerful. What say I be your co-ruler instead of your underling?"

The actual player wasn't as eloquent, but you can guess how THAT went...
Conversely, Good is a harder, slower path, but it's the only player to actually play a Good PC all the way to deity level (Thrin/Upper Krust) who still has his PC.
Thrin's deity peers are friends and allies, not mistrustful rivals.

 

[Numion]

I don't agree. As a DM I've acted as some pretty evil NPCs and thus "practiced", as you put it, some pretty horrible things. I've been doing this for about 10 years now actively. If that really had a negative effect on me, someone would've said by now, right?

In those 10 years I've never actually acted violently. If your statement was true, then surely I would've had some violent impulses, since I've been practising violence in my mind for the past ten years?

For our group D&D is mainly a nice hobby; it isn't a mental practise to better ourselves. Your general way of living is what counts. Not what you do in a game.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

In keeping with this notion of collaborative storytelling, I'm curious to hear how players and DMs have actually used evil or morally ambiguous PCs & NPCs in their games. Reading through these threads, I've noticed that much of the debate has been fairly abstract. Some specific examples might give us something more concrete to discuss.

I run a game focused on politics and military actions. The general alignment of the game centers around Lawful Evil.

In this game, sieges are held, in which civilians lose their homes, private businesses are burned and looted, public wells are poisoned, important leaders are assassinated, prisoners are tortured, etc. But through it all, there has always been one underlying principle which has continued to guarantee success and victory: Loyalty and Brotherhood to the Company.

Taking matters further, even though the PCs tend to be evil, they have essentially developed a "cause" to wave around as a flag for the general public to see: They have essentially resurrected the pride of the people in establishing a new government to replace the world-spanning empire that fell thousands of years ago. Although they themselves have little faith in returning this empire to glory, and in fact view it as little more than a tool to sway the hearts and minds of those they've conquered, they have found a great deal of success in establishing governmental structures centered around Lawful Good concepts, all of which view themselves as "substates" of this empire even though the empire, in reality, does not exist.

Within the group, amongst the PCs and NPCs of this band of conquerers, there is honor, commitment, loyalty, brotherhood, and unity. They depend on each other, and prefer to use treachery, deceit and cunning to face the enemy from a point of superior positioning and planning rather than place anyone in undo risk or treat anyone as a sacrificial lamb to gain an advantage. The less losses, the better.

As the DM of this group, I play many unsavory characters, and have done so for long periods of time. The longest running NPC is the grizzled old Company Sergeant that is harsh, cruel, relentless and unforgiving, the type of guy who has turned down positions of command because he likes killing and would rather take his chances on the front line where he can kill rather than sit at a table moving little wooden miniatures on a map.

I've been actively role-playing this character for five years.

Consequently, this is where the BoVD gets it's value: No matter how nasty these guys are, there's always somebody more vile to fight, displace and replace. By the nature of vileness, I'm able to prove that Evil PCs, in the same manner as Elric, Gurney Hallack and others, can be heroes.

Honestly, how many people here watched Payback and didn't cheer for the bad guy? How many here watched Pulp Fiction and loved the characters even though every one of them was an icon of self-interest (aside for perhaps Julius)? Who here wanted to see George Clooney die in From Dusk to Dawn? Who's been thrilled by Clint Eastwood's "Man with No Name" character? Who laughed when Micky and Mallory Knox got away?

Each of these characters was, by D&D standards, Evil. Yet, in all of these stories, they were often the "good guys" by virtue of there always being someone, or something, worse for them to fight.

 

[Bagpuss]

That the mathematical laws of probability do not apply to a D20 if someone in the room utters the phrase

"You need anything BUT a one".