Are lessons learned through D&D?

[S'mon]

SPOILERS AHEAD

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.

Pulp Fiction - I liked the characters, but the Bruce Willis one was Neutral not Evil and I was very happy when he blew away Travolta. Certainly I'd have liked to see the rest of the evil characters die also. The George Clooney 'From Dusk' character was N/E, he wouldn't have been E but for the bad influence of his brother, so it was good that the brother died. Eastwood's Man With No Name is practically an icon of Neutral, he almost defines that alignment! Definitely not Evil IMO. Maybe Van Cleef's character was evil in the third movie. Your examples make me think that maybe I wouldn't rate this mercenary company of yours as evil, either. Do they rape female prisoners and slit their throats? Commit other war atrocities? Slaughter helpless villagers 'pour encourager les autres'? You can be a conventional 'bad guy' without being Evil in D&D alignment terms - eg Tony Soprano is probably closer to N, or even LN!

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

The only lessons I've leared are..

1. Don't piss the DM off.
2. Don't piss the Dragon off if you are not ready to fight.

If I was teaching lessions when DM'ing then I'd have become a gasp..."Storyteller" or some other horrible thing like that. We aren't an amature theater troupe so we don't really concentrate on that stuff. We just have fun.

 

[Tsyr]

Wondered how long this thread would last before someone had to get in a dig at WW...

Anyhow...

SJ, I already know from your past posts we don't agree. Fair enough.

My position?

Is it possible to be affected by playing evil characters? Yes. Will a "normal" "well adjusted" person be affected by it? No. I've played assassins. I've played anti-paladins. I've played theives. I've played Vampires in V:TM. I've played Red Talon werewolves. I've also played Paladins, clerics of good gods, Celestial Chorus mage, Children of Gaia werewolves, you name it. I'm still the same person I was before I played them. I didn't start being rude and mean when I played a Vampire. I didn't start donating to charity more when I played a Paladin.

Likewise, if who I play reflects who I am, as someone else suggested... I'm what? A rude-yet-polite nice-yet-mean person? I cheat people then slip the money back in their bag? What?

Sorry, to my eyes DnD is a game. Period. It's not a teaching tool. And that's a REALLY dangerous line of thought to follow, SJ. It gives merit to the claims that DnD teaches paganism. A claim that we have FINALY almost put to rest. DnD can only help or hurt people in the same way anything else can... it can be a stress outlet, like any game. It can be a source of social interaction, like most games. And it can be a source of frustration, yes, just like any other game. But it's not going to change you much, if any.

Yes, there are people who distrurb me, and I won't play with. The people who act out acts of rape, for example. Bad bad bad. And yes, it probably does say something about the person. But those are, in general, very extreme cases.

As for SJ's "Therapy roleplaying works, so DnD roleplaying effects you", I must point out a big difference. Roleplaying of the former type is directed AT changing the person, and both people have to want it to do something for it to work. Ever hear the saying "you can't be hypnotised to do something against your will"? It's more or less true. Not perfectly, and again extreme cases are an exception, but for anything I'm talking about in this arguement, it's true enough. The same holds true for roleplaying... roleplaying can't make a fundamentaly good person evil, or make a fundamentaly evil person good. It just doesn't have that much power.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

The George Clooney 'From Dusk' character was N/E, he wouldn't have been E but for the bad influence of his brother, so it was good that the brother died.

I'm not so sure here... If anything, Clooney had a leash on Terrantino, who had some obvious issues.

Your examples make me think that maybe I wouldn't rate this mercenary company of yours as evil, either. Do they rape female prisoners and slit their throats? Commit other war atrocities? Slaughter helpless villagers 'pour encourager les autres'?

These are far from an exclusive list of evil acts, but I'll address them:

Rape: PCs no, NPCs yes.

Slaughter Helpless Villaigers: If you mean "line 'em up and hang 'em", no. If you mean, "poison the wells, start a plague, burn their fields and starve out the local population in order to weaken the enemy state", which will result in the death of otherwise helpless villaigers and civilians, than yes.

If my group has learned anything, it's that when conquering, you make life hard on the enemy's civilian populace, but after you've conquered them, you provide food, clothing, and protection. This is done to darken the history of their former rulers ("times were hard under the former kings...") and to inspire them to follow those whom are now more capable to provide them with a better life ("We've never had it so good until they came...").

The general concensus amongst the group is that there is a solid goal: An enemy to eradicate from the world and an Empire to restore. What makes them Evil isn't individual acts (like rape or slaughtering villaiges), but an overall campaign of warfare at any cost, of manipulating kingdoms, religions, cities and entire populations for purposes not aimed at some higher purpose or justified by false righteousness, but simply an outright plan laid out with a single purpose: Take over the world.

If they can get a nation or land to follow them willingly, or through the use of more subtle tactics like bribery, assassinations or threats, than they do so. However, if gaining control means a few hundred thousand need to die, there's little hesitation in the matter. Consequently, the current alignment of such a nation is also irrelevant. Good, Evil, Lawful or Chaotic are all viewed as the Foe should they refuse to yield.

 

[S'mon]

Interesting reply Bendris, thanks. In-game I wouldn't make any distinction between the evilness of raping an NPC or a PC, out of game the latter is clearly less acceptable in the same way as intra-party killings are less acceptable than killing monsters. But both (raping NPCs, raping PCs) are equally evil from the campaign universe's POV when assigning Alignment, IMO.

 

[Rashak Mani]

First about playing EVIL EVIL characters... you have to be careful about making empty blood lusting caricatures. Most teens play these. In the defense of playing Evil characters I have to say they have been some of my best characters. Both were "real" in motivation and morality. Selfish and careless more than evil would describe them better. Our evil group was more "civilized" in many aspects than other good groups.

Normal people arent affected by playing evil characters. At best they learn that killing innocents isnt so straight forward as it might seem. Evil isnt as abnormal I think.

Someone said they felt more strongly about their own faith by playing religious characters. My case is the opposite. Being a person completely disconnected from religion and faith I have a difficult time playing well Clerics. I have played many and in fact I could say except for those that followed more nature oriented stuff they didnt affect me in anything and my rping was substandard.

Playing Good characters has felt more like a straight jacket to me than fun roleplaying sometimes. Paladins can be fun because they are so saintly. Evil too. Most people know they are abberations.

Overall I wouldnt agree that D&D has anything much to offer in terms of morality lessons. It can teach you about yourself somettimes... not only by what you play but what you dont too.

 

[Oni]

Likewise, if who I play reflects who I am, as someone else suggested... I'm what? A rude-yet-polite nice-yet-mean person? I cheat people then slip the money back in their bag? What?

It is a tad more complex that. It is not Timmy plays a paladin so he must be a good, upstanding guy. As I said before these reflections are not necessarily us, sometimes they are not us, a negative of ourselves and sometimes it is even less clear cut than that. How a person chooses to have his characters behave in game, the sorts of things he or she wants to focus on and what things they would rather glaze over all give hints to their own personalities and experiences. In some ways it is really something that is blatantly obvious, something that really goes without saying (and in doing so I've actually made it harder to understand, through my own inadaquate phrasing and over simplification).

 

[mkletch]

Alignment categorization in D&D has always troubled me. Too convenient. 3E made it worse by defining every evil character as one who laughs while torturing babies. Just read the Good vs. Evil section in the PHB. It's not that evil should be given redeeming qualities, but the extreme is listed as the norm.

A lot of how D&D developed represents only a western philosophy of good, evil, order and chaos. D&D actually puts way too much stress on alignment in general and the good-evil axis in particular. "Hey, that's evil. I blast it." Yeah, that is a moral compass. If you consider the definition of evil in the PHB to be the extreme, it gives a little more room. Evil should even include supporting or not opposing 'really evil' stuff, not just the act itself. There are whole societies and cultures on our very own earth that could then be classified as evil.

Not saying that they are actually evil, by any means. Remember, this whole discussion takes place through the rose-colored glasses of 'western' culture and certain religious beliefs which, to quote Gandalf, "I will not utter here." How different would this discussion be if D&D had been created in the USSR of the cold war? In pre-communist or communist china? In a middle-eastern country or in a "third world" country (gotta love that term; so complimentary)? Western culture offers many benefits to the world, but like the spread of British administrative system thoughout its empire in the 1700's through early 1900's, there are drawbacks, too. A kind of 'selective diversity'. We like diversity of these kinds, but other kinds of diversity are not acceptable. Then we base our laws and moral system upon this 'tunnel vision'. A house built on sand...

As for evil characters played, well, I have played none. When I went through that phase as an adolescent and again later, I was almost exclusively DMing. I had my outlet and 'living vicariously' as Eric has often described it. But my neutral characters are not 'apathetic' or paralyzed. Sometimes they perform gracious and generous acts, other times they fail to realize the rights and hopes of others. So, a variety of neutral based on spending a little time on both sides of the fence, rather than stuck on the fence. I tend to find neutral characters most intersting to play, because they are the only ones who do not already have their decisions made for them within the game system. "Hey, that's a demon. I blast it." Yep, chalk up another kill for 'good'.

How often do 'good' characters simply kill their opponents and take their stuff? That single action (admittedly, a single action hardly makes a character or exclusively determines alignment) would be both chaotic and evil per the definitions within the game. But if you base the career of a character on this all to common sequence of events in D&D, where should your alignment drift? Even tha paladin who allows his party to do this through 15 experience levels certainly has fallen from grace.

Now, how many paladins actually bother to do subdual damage to opponents. None that I've ever played with, nor any other 'good' characters. And I've played with some really good roleplayers who get into their roles immersively, and really 'think' like their characters. But the whole nature of the game, exacerbated by Diablo and its clones and sequels, and the changes to 3E, emphasizes this kill-take-power cycle.

Frankly, I don't even know if I have a point, here. Or maybe that's it: this whole discussion is without a major point, except perhaps to make people think. Does it really matter in either case. Anytime I have seen this discussion, either here, or Eric's old site, or other sites, the sides have been chosen, the lines drawn before the opening post is made. There may be a couple people here or there that haven't thought about it before, but most of it is like running on ice - lots of energy spent and we got nowhere. Perhaps one of the moderators should put it on their calendar to simply bump this thread every other month or so?

The premise is damaged: that D&D actually has good and evil, that they are properly defined, and that they can be defined, without first defining the cultural/religious background. I'm sure we could not find agreement on those parameters, but it would certainly spark another interesting thread...

-Fletch!

 

[SemperJase]

Remember, this whole discussion takes place through the rose-colored glasses of 'western' culture and certain religious beliefs ... Western culture offers many benefits to the world, but like the spread of British administrative system thoughout its empire in the 1700's through early 1900's, there are drawbacks, too. A kind of 'selective diversity'. We like diversity of these kinds, but other kinds of diversity are not acceptable. Then we base our laws and moral system upon this 'tunnel vision'. A house built on sand...

-Fletch!

OK, so you are saying that people have built a house on sand (i.e. they are foolish) if they view the world only through western culture based on certain religious beliefs.

Do you realize that very saying comes from the religious belief that states it is wisdom to view the world that way? According to the reference it is actually foolish to view morals any other way than on those western religious beliefs.

It would seem your allusion is not accurate.

 

[Tsyr]

I think what he's saying, SJ, is that DnD uses almost exclusivly a very simplified western outlook on things. There are things that are considered OK in western culture that are "bad" or "evil" in others, and vis versa. Thus, saying that (for example) playing a paladin is a "good" is sorta over-simplifiying the situation, when the definition of good and evil isn't even universal (Well, the concept more or less is. The actual details thereof, however, are not).