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

[Mallus]

Yes, but...

Yes. It is self evident that murder and rape are evil without the need to act them out in fantasy.

I don't think anyone is seriously questioning that rape and murder are evil.

I believe 'acting out' negetive emotions/impluses in a safe environment describes how some types of actual psychotherapy works. Or I am I getting this from movies-made-for television?

I also believe its also self-evident that the emotional states the underlie actions like murder and rape, while still evil, are also common. Everyone wants to be a walking mass of unrestrained id from time to time.

And make a crude analogy, its self-evident that painful physical violence --serving no higher, "just" cause-- is bad, yet we have organized sports like football and boxing. Which in the case of football is popluar with our youth. Real, occasionally bone-breaking violence... as a form of play. Now who would participate in such a thing?

 

[SemperJase]

So I think it's hypocritical to say "I don't like to play these types of evil characters, so they are BAD and no one should", instead of "I don't like to play these types of evil characters, so I won't." I respect other peoples' judgement enough that I don't think I can judge what's appropriate for their campaign.

With all due respect PC being hypocritcal is saying one thing and doing another. I am saying people should not play evil characters while at the same time refraining from playing evil characters myself. That is consistency not hypocrisy.

By inference, you claim that my game is about murdering creatures and taking their stuff since that is 'what the game is about'. Well, that is not what my game is about.

My last game invovled revisiting the old Keep on the Borderlands. The party visited caves that were home to orcs and other monsters in order to rescue people captured as slaves. Non-combatants, women and children were not slaughtered.

 

[barsoomcore]

It is self evident that murder and rape are evil without the need to act them out in fantasy.

That's your answer to all my questions? "Murder and rape are evil"?

Am I correct to assume then that for you, all moral decisions have already been made? That somehow you've been provided with a scorecard and all you have to do is tick things off, add up the numbers and get your answer?

You keep reducing this to very simple, black and white concepts. Sports psychology. Murder and rape. Is there no ambiguity in your world? Are there no situations that make you scratch your head and ask yourself, "Now is that evil or not?"

Because if there is, then suddenly there's a need to explore. When we are presented with situations for which we don't have scorecards, we are obliged to investigate and attempt to learn the truth, to assess the nature of the situation. Is it good or evil? Healthy or sick? Exploration is the only means we possess for making these determinations.

And it is the very nature of exploration that we don't know the answer before we begin. Therefore, the danger always exists that we may find ourselves exploring truly evil pathways. There's no way to avoid this risk.

In fact, any attempt to avoid this risk is sets oneself up for disaster. The need to explore will come upon you no matter how hard you try to stick to the known, to make use of the answers provided to you by authority. If you have already set upon a path of exploration, of investigating that which is unknown to you, not only will you be smarter, stronger and healthier than those who were afraid to venture forth, but you will be much better prepared when life yanks the rug out from under you and you find yourself suddenly needing to make determinations of your own.

My final point is this: if we accept the need for exploration, and therefore the possibility that we will end up traversing unhealthy paths, I suggest that we must perforce accept the notion that paths whose unhealthiness seems self-evident to us, what seems unneeding of any exploration, may not seem so to others. And that since we accept exploration has value, we cannot condemn out of hand those who explore paths that to us are clearly without value.

We can question the value of what they find. We can condemn their methods or their definitions of value. But we have no basis on which to condemn the act of exploration itself.

EDIT: typo

 

[herald]

But your players did invade thier homes and kill the inhabitants, didn't they? I'm sure that the orc thought of that cave as thier own. I'm also sure that the players had no way of reasoning that not all the Orcs were involved. At best, they may not have asked that question at all.

 

[Dr. NRG]

Morally Superior Killer?

*snip*

What kind of socialization is it teaching when you revel in torture, rape, and murder? Negative socialization. That is the impact that translates into the real world.

I would reply with, what kind of socialization is it teaching when your sole method of becoming "better" involves slaying sentient beings (as in most RPGs)? If you believe engaging in pretending to carry out "evil" behavior is going to impact people's real-life behavior, why are you engaging in a killing-driven hobby? Are you not morally imperiling yourself and others by spending hours pretending to be engaged in killing? Does it make a DM "worse" or "more evil" to run monsters that try to kill the presumably innocent characters? Is a player who tries to improve his combat (killing) capabilites doing something morally wrong?

What I am pointing at here is that I believe that you are making a relative, not absolute, judgment about the BOVD. Taking the position that something is "too vile for me" is a world apart from taking the position that something is "too vile, period." Taking the second position implies that others should be held to the standard by which you're judging -- a standard they may not share, regardless of whether you believe it's superior.

 

[SemperJase]

That's your answer to all my questions? "Murder and rape are evil"?

My answer is that one does not need to portray evil to understand it. You can explore the moral questions you raise without choosing the side of evil.

You keep reducing this to very simple, black and white concepts. Sports psychology. Murder and rape. Is there no ambiguity in your world? Are there no situations that make you scratch your head and ask yourself, "Now is that evil or not?"

Again, one does not need to play evil to discover it. For example, is it moral to kill/imprison the character who has not yet murdered or raped or let him go knowing that he will do that later?

Playing and evil character, there is no moral question. The motivation is to satisfy their desires with no regard for the consequences to others.

An evil character does not say "is this evil or not?"

 

[RobNJ]

I suppose you mean that it is inargueable that Dragon 300 does encourage people to play evil characters.

No. If I meant that, I would've said that.

If Monte Cook says that he does not encourage people to do so, he is contradicting his own article. Read the side bar. It clearly encourages PCs to use feats from the BoVD.

That is a lie.

He says that in a vile game (and maybe in a mature one, I don't remember), there might be PCs using feats from the Book of Vile Darkness. But see my post upthread a few where I outline how people with evil feats can still be heroes.

In addition another article, The Risen Dead, encourages players to take prestige classes that have evil alignments.

Another lie.

It encourages nothing. It describes what you must do if you wanted to take such a character. It does not encourage it.

 

[SemperJase]

Re: Morally Superior Killer?

If you believe engaging in pretending to carry out "evil" behavior is going to impact people's real-life behavior, why are you engaging in a killing-driven hobby? Are you not morally imperiling yourself and others by spending hours pretending to be engaged in killing?

No. I believe there is a clear moral distinction between killing and murder.
In real life, I was in the Marine Corps where I was trained to shoot and kill real people ( I was never required to use that training). I do not see a moral conflict there. We were not trained to murder. In fact, we were trained to preserve the life of non-combatants.

Is a player who tries to improve his combat (killing) capabilites doing something morally wrong?

So, based on that moral distinction, no, the player is not morally wrong.

 

[RobNJ]

Although behaviorism is still taught by some psychology teachers, and some books are still written espousing it, it has, by and large, been rejected as a valid psychological view for humans.

That's not really true. Strict behavorism focused exclusively on observable behavior and ignored the inner world. That strictly-exterior-behavior view has largely fallen out of fashion. However, cognative behaviorism--behaviorism that takes into account thought processes and emotions as well as observable physical actions--is still very much accepted. Indeed, I would guess that it's the dominant paradigm (Freudian psychodynamism surely isn't).

 

[RobNJ]

What is the theme of the movie and the purpose of the portrayal?

Argh, this his so frustrating. Book of Vile Darkness explicitly says that it's not for players, it's for DMs. Let's leave aside people playing evil PCs.

You are clearly still against rape and the like existing in a game, even if it occurs as a result of NPCs. Why? If these hideous acts are undertaken by villains and are shown to be wrong, yet are still vile . . . does that mean that the DM is absolved of sin in your eyes because he doesn't advocate the behavior, even though he's depicting it?

The way I see it the position you're taking only has 2 conclusions:

1) Vile content is always bad and taints the soul of whoever produces or consumes it.

2) Any extremity of vile content is fine as long as it's labeled with a big blinking neon sign overhead that says, "BAD!!!!"

1 is goofy as all get out and I don't believe 2 is how you feel.

Furthermore, what is so wrong with producing a morally ambiguous work? If someone does something vile, but is still partially a good person (Gollum in Lord of the Rings, for example), is that a bad thing? I would find such an unambiguous story very boring myself. I suspect most others would too.