[BoVD]Well, since I can't seem to post this on Wizards forums...

[alsih2o]

I do not claim to be superior. I claim that this moral code of playing only good characters is superior. There is a difference. It is a superior moral code that makes people better.

a. a moral code of playing only good characters is superior
b. a superior moral code is better.
c you have the former moral code.
which can only lead to d. you think you are better.

if you are not saying it outright in these post, you are definetely implying it, and i think you are too smart to get by pretending that thsi shouldn't insult people. yes?

 

[SemperJase]

Any game I would run would teach that those activities land you into a big heap o' trouble.

You are using your game to reinforce positive social behavior. That sounds like a great environment to me.

 

[alsih2o]

Good point. I agree that D&D alone will not turn you into a thug. It is one piece of a larger picture.

I am not suggesting that evil D&D characters and unsocial behavior are cause and effect respectively.

"You are what you practice to be. Now you may not become a murder, but you will be practicing mistreatment of others. If you view yourself as someone who wants to improve the world around you, you won't get there by practicing oppression"

actually, yes, you do suggest just that, very clearly

 

[barsoomcore]

I disagree with your source. If you go to a sports psychologist to improve your performance, he will tell you to visual success.

A pretty facile example, I think you have to agree. We're not talking about hitting a baseball here. We're talking about the best way to live one's life. It seems like you see everything that you do as a sort of "practice" of previously defined patterns. That is, the question of what is the best way to be has already been decided and our job is simply to get better at being that way.

I don't view life as that sort of activity at all. To me, life is an exploration, a constant growing and learning experience -- the very antithesis of "practice". I don't know what the best way to be is -- I doubt I ever will. I have theories on good ways to be and I constantly test those theories -- which necessarily entails going down some blind alleys and getting myself into trouble. So far from practicing a method of living my life I am constantly searching out new methods and comparing them against the ones I have now.

I'm not practicing to be anything.

I have not yet met a gamer who enjoys playing evil characters that I find trustworthy. Would you trust the guy who likes to roleplay a rapist as a baby sitter with your daughter?

More than I would the guy who pretends he never has to face evil. That man doesn't know himself and his behaviour under stress cannot be predicted.

Of course people like Buttercup and Barsoomcore believe their position is morally superior.

I'm sorry, but you are incorrect. I do not in any way consider my position to be morally superior.

I consider it correct. I consider myself correct. I consider you wrong. It's got nothing to do with morality and everything to do with truth and falsehood. It's simply false to suggest that exploration is without value. To say that confronting evil within ourselves will only make us worse people.

It sounds rather like you are suggesting that people are weak and incapable of making value judgements for themselves. That seems to be why you resist the notion of value in vile -- because in your way of seeing things, we all insensibly become whatever it is that we practice. You don't seem to allow for the possibility that in exploring something vile we might reject it even more strongly than we ever did -- and with better reason. Again, I suggest that your way only works if we're satisfied that the answers provided to us are adequate.

Which I am not, and will never be. I believe that this sort of satisfaction is what allows injustice and cruelty to persist -- the unwillingness to have one's values tested.

This is not a moral judgement. It is a factual one.

 

[Mallus]

A thousand times no SJ...

The difference between this example and our discussion is that an author writing about a character in a book is different from identifiying and personalizing the actions of a character you roleplay.

Generally, the author is describing the actions of someone else and presents that as a conflict to be overcome. Now the person who writes rapist fantasies disturbs me. I don't find that person trustworthy.

Authors identify with their characters all the time. Objectifying internal emotional/cognitive states is the very core of art. If there isn't a piece of yourself in your work, how did it get made? Morever, why did it get made? To say a gamers relationship/identification with a character is stronger than that of an author does a great disservice to all artists practicing their craft. Writers, actors, sculptors, puppeteers, you name it.

Authors create villians to be overcome, but who are those villians exactly? Is it too trite to mention that these unpleasant guys spring forth from the author, and for some very act of creating weak/despicable/fallen/futile characters allow them to safely, healthily deal with issues that never get expressed as actual behavior?

Viola, catharsis.

I'm not asking everyone to find value in this, only to consider that some do. Some people that you could very well trust as babysitters.

Also, to invert your other statement, why would you automatically trust a person who played a paladin? Its a simple matter to always do the right thing when nothings on the line. Hard choices simply do not exist in a narrow, bounded, unreal world of the game. When its your life, future and happiness in the living, breathing world thats at stake, then do moral choices have meaning.

 

[BlackMoria]

SemperJase wrote:
I must clarify again that I have not advocated censorship. Not once have I suggested that WotC not be allowed to publish what they want. I have not suggested that gamers be prohibited from playing the kind of game they want.

SemperJase earlier wrote:
The debate is not about whether they can print vile content. It is if they should and if people should read it. My position is that they should not and people should not.

At face value, your statements above don't sync up, putting your argument on a slippery slope.

If you are not hinting at censorship in the second quote above, just what are you saying then?

 

[SemperJase]

I have some questions for you SemperJase.

How "evil" are the villians in your game?

Generally they threaten the lives or freedom of other characters for self interest.
Do you mean are they vile? The answer to that is no. However my beef isn't with graphic content (although I personally don't use it).

What motivation do you give your "good" characters to oppose them?

Usually to prevent an immediate threat to themselves or their family/neighbors. There are hundreds of ways to do that.

I think a point a lot of people have made is that the BOVD is not really meant for PC's but can help DM's create some truly memorable villains. I for one will buy the BOVD and just not use the thngs I find distasteful.
Dirge

I understand you point. My difficulty with BoVD is that Dragon 300 does (and at this point I have to assume that the book itself will) suggest that PCs take feats from BoVD. (see the side bar on page 47.)

 

[SemperJase]

"You are what you practice to be. Now you may not become a murder, but you will be practicing mistreatment of others. If you view yourself as someone who wants to improve the world around you, you won't get there by practicing oppression"

actually, yes, you do suggest just that, very clearly

OK, let me say, my position has been revised. You are right, D&D itself will not lead to depravity. It is a step on that road though when used to reinforce negative social behavior.

See, I'm reasonable

 

[barsoomcore]

D&D itself will not lead to depravity. It is a step on that road though when used to reinforce negative social behavior.

How would you feel about this restatement of your position:

Roleplaying evil behaviour exposes players to the danger that they will feel encouraged to participate in evil behaviour in real life.

Then the issue becomes one of "Do we consider the danger worth facing?" Perhaps most of us would agree that the danger, to a greater or lesser degree, exists. Where we disagree are on the questions of risk and potential gain. You seem to see a very high risk coupled with very little (perhaps no) potential for gain. I see almost no real risk and a reasonable potential for gain (we're talking about a game, it's not likely to change your life, but you never know).

Does that sound right? It does to me.

 

[Sammael99]

You are crediting a theory to me that is the opposite of what I suggest. My theory is based on ACTIVE parenting. I am suggesting that parent gamers will steer their children away from the hobby if it continues this vile trend.

That does not suggest that parents abdicate their responsibility. In this case, they would be embracing it. As a result, a family friendly game would create more sales.

By the same token you could easily argue that parents will ban movies and TV for the same reasons. You can't deny that much viler content exists there. And yet this has not happened. If anything, the contrary has !

My point was simply that I don't believe RPing parents will ban anything because some products in the product line appeal to adults rather than kids. As has been argued many times here, I doubt very much they'll be anything more vile than stuff we have already seen in D&D product lines in the past...